HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2021-11-23The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high‐quality, reliable services
for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards
of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services,
programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, November 23, 2021
7:00 p.m.
In Person Meeting – Mayor, Trustees, Staff and Public
ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT
By Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written public comment on a specific
agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at
https://dms.estes.org/forms/TownBoardPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 12:00 p.m.,
Tuesday, November 23, 2021. All comments will be provided to the Board for consideration during
the agenda item and added to the final packet.
OPTIONAL REMOTE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING BOARD MEETING
Remote options for participation in the meeting will be available by call-in telephone option or online
via Zoom Webinar which will be moderated by the Town Clerk’s Office. Instructions are also available
at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by clicking on “Virtual Town Board Meeting Participation”.
Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site, and not
via the website, due to the streaming delay and possible audio interference.
CALL-IN (TELEPHONE OPTION):877-853-5257 (toll-free) Webinar ID: 982 1690 2040
ONLINE (ZOOM WEBINAR): https://zoom.us/j/98216902040 Webinar ID: 982-1690-2040.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2. Town Board Minutes dated November 9, 2021, Town Board Study Session Minutes
dated November 9, 2021 and Special Town Board Minutes dated November 11, 2021.
3. Estes Park Planning Commission Minutes dated October 19, 2021 (Acknowledgement
only).
4. Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Minutes dated October 21, 2021
(Acknowledgement only).
5. Community and Family Advisory Board Minutes dated October 11, 2021
(Acknowledgement only).
Prepared 11-12-2021
*Revised 11-19-2021
Page 1
NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was
prepared.
6. Appointment of Frank Theis to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee to
complete the term of Michael Kennedy.
LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. PETITION FOR FINE-IN-LIEU OF SUSPENSION FOR GALEX LLC DBA CHELITOS
MEXICAN RESTAURANT, 145 E. ELKHORN AVENUE, HOTEL AND
RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Special Prosecutor Brown.
REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities).
1. 2021 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK OVERVIEW AND 2022 PLAN.
Superintendent Sidles.
2. ESTES PARK WESTERN HERITAGE, INC., FINANCIAL REPORT. Western Heritage
Board Chairman Purdy.
Annual financial report required in the MOU.
ACTION ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION 83-21 COLORADO OPIOIDS SETTLEMENT MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING. Assistant Town Administrator Damweber.
Colorado Department of Law came to an agreement with Colorado’s local
governments for distributing opioid settlement and recovery funds to local counties and
municipalities.
2. ORDINANCE 17-21 AMENDING ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
2.20.010 COMPENSATION OF MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, AND TRUSTEES.
Town Clerk Williamson.
To consider amending the compensation provided to newly elected officials in 2022.
ADJOURN.
*
Page 2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 9, 2021
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall and Virtually in
said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of November, 2021.
Present: Wendy Koenig, Mayor
Patrick Martchink, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Carlie Bangs
Marie Cenac
Barbara MacAlpine
Scott Webermeier
Cindy Younglund
Also Present: Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk
Absent: Trustee Bangs and Town Administrator Machalek
Mayor Koenig called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
PROCLAMATION:
Mayor Koenig read a proclamation recognizing “Emergency Response Efforts During the
2020 Wildfires”.
YEARS OF SERVICE RECOGNITION:
Mayor Koenig recognized staff meeting service milestones with the Town, including
Shaun Bledsoe – 15 years, Gregory Filsinger II and Michael McEndaffer – 10 years, and
Bunny Beers, Devin Gelsinger, Duane Hudson, Michael Northcutt, Cory Ramacher,
Marilyn Williams and Brenda Wyss – 5 years.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Martchink) to approve the Agenda as
presented, and it passed unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
John Meissner, Town Citizen provided comments on the list of impacted
department/divisions the Board discussed during the de-Brucing item at the November 9,
2021 study session, proposed ballot questions and stated the need for public access to
information. He stated concern for the disregard of the mask mandate issued by Larimer
County and emphasized proper hygiene and recommended the Town educate local
businesses or promote and encourage the mask mandate.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Trustee comments were heard and have been summarized: The Larimer County Housing
Stability Manager, Claire Bouchard attended the Community & Family Advisory Board
meeting to discuss eviction assistance and the Emergency Rental and Utility Assistance
Program; the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation hosted the Larimer
County/Estes Park Workforce Housing Symposium on November 4, 2021 which was well
attended by community leaders; a COVID-19 vaccine and booster bus was provided at
the Dia de los Muertos celebration; Larimer County Health Director Gonzales provided
an update to elected officials stating 94% of patients in ICU’s are unvaccinated leaving
the units overwhelmed and patients are being transported from the Valley into Estes Park
to relieve the stress on hospitals; Members of the Board attended National Philanthropy
day at the YMCA of the Rockies, where Mayor Pro Tem Martchink was honored to be
nominated as Philanthropist of the Year; the CompPAC held a visioning session on
November 3, 2021 and would hold a second session on November 17, 2021, the public
was encouraged to attend and provide input on the Comprehensive Plan; the
Environmental Sustainability Task Force would hold a virtual listening session on
November 16, 2021; and reminded citizens to get their COVID vaccine. DRAFTPage 3
Board of Trustees – November 9, 2021 – Page 2
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
None.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2. Town Board Minutes dated October 26, 2021 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated October 26, 2021.
3. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated September 15, 2021
(acknowledgement only).
4. Park Advisory Board Minutes dated September 16, 2021 (acknowledgement only).
5. Resolution 77-21 Transportation Alternatives Program and Multimodal Options Fund
Professional Services Contract with Otak, Inc., for Fall River Trail Project,
$120,585.00, Budgeted.
It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Younglund) to approve the Consent
Agenda, and it passed unanimously.
REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: (Outside Entities).
1. ESTES VALLEY OPEN SPACE PLAN AWARD.
Estes Valley Land Trust Executive Director Boring was joined by Naomi Hawf/Estes
Park Housing Authority Director, Zac Wiebe/Larimer County Department of Natural
Resources, Estee Rivera, Rocky Mountain Conservancy and a local 5th Grader who
acknowledged the development of the Estes Valley Open Space Plan which was the
recipient of the Colorado Open Space Alliance and American Planning Association
awards.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Items reviewed by Planning Commission or staff for
Town Board Final Action.
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. ORDINANCE 15-21 AMENDING CHAPTERS 3, 4, 5 AND 13 AND ADDING
CHAPTER 14 TO THE ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (WCF). Mayor Koenig opened
the public hearing. Staff provided a thorough overview of the amendments and
stated the regulations are in line with current technology, terminology, and are
consistent with the latest applicable Federal regulations. Highlights of the
overview included: Removing obsolete language and references, establish
Chapter 14, Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF); Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) language for certain WCFs and a Neighborhood and Community
Meeting requirement and Chapter 4 table updates for permitted uses. The
new regulations would generally apply to facilites which involve “personal
wireless services” where cellular or mobile phone service providers construct
and erect the majority of facilities, including atennas, base stations, support
equipment, towers, and alternate tower structures. Mr. Dittman/Town council
stated the changes were required for compliance with Federal and State law
and additional steps may be necessary to fully complete the process of
regulating these new types of facilities. The proposed amendments were
approved for recommendation by the Estes Park Planning Commission at their
September 21, 2021 meeting. Staff have received input about facilities and
expects more interest after the code adoption. Mayor Koenig closed the public
hearing. It was moved and seconded (Younglund/Webermeier) to approve
Ordinance 15-21 amending Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 13 and adding Chapter
14 to the Estes Park Development Code regarding Wireless
Communication Facilities (WFC), and it passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEMS: DRAFTPage 4
Board of Trustees – November 9, 2021 – Page 3
1. PUBLIC HEARING - 2022 BUDGET. Mayor Koenig reopened the public hearing
continued from October 26, 2021. Director Hudson presented the proposed 2022
budget of approximately $79 million with appropriations at $78,759,713. The budget
outlines the intended uses of the Highway User Trust Fund revenues received from
the State of Colorado estimated at $280,604, used to offset costs in the Streets
division of Public Works. Resolution 78-21 would set the mill levy for 2022 at 1.822
mills for a total of approximately $461,908 in property tax revenues. Resolution 79-
21 would adopt the 2022 budget as presented. Resolution 80-21 would appropriate
sums of money to be expended as outlined in the proposed budget. Mayor Koenig
closed the public hearing. It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Younglund)
to approve the utilization of the Highway User’s Trust Fund for expenditures
for striping, snow plowing, traffic signs, street lights, and other related road
and street costs as proposed for 2022, and it passed unanimously.
It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Younglund) to approve Resolution 78-
21 to set the mill levy, Resolution 79-21 to adopt the 2022 budget, and 80-21 to
appropriate sums of money for 2022, and it passed unanimously.
2. VISIT ESTES PARK (VEP) 2022 OPERATING PLAN. Per the Intergovernmental
Agreement with Larimer County, the VEP Operating Plan shall be approved,
modified, or disapproved by both the Town and County no later than December 5th
of each year. VEP CEO Franker presented the Plan to the Town Board and Larimer
County Commissioners on October 5, 2021. Larimer County Commissioners
unanimously approved the Operating Plan on October 12, 2021. She stated the Plan
focuses on VEPs committment to enhancing engagement with the community to
better manage the visitor economy and effectively integrate tourism and economic
development in a sustainable manner. VEP has received results from a data
analysis program through Destination Analyst and AirDNA which would be
presented to the Board and community when available. VEP CEO Franker
recommended approval of the 2022 Operating Plan and invited the Board and
members of the public to visit the new office for an Open House on December 8,
2021. Mike Bryson/Town Citizen stated concerns regarding VEP, their contributions
to boosting tourism and relaying information to visitors. Donna Carlson/Estes
Chamber of Commerce Executive Director commended VEP and the efforts of CEO
Franker in building partnerships in the community. John Meissner/Town Citizen
stated his interest in the engagement with local businesses. It was moved and
seconded (Younglund/Cenac) to approve the Visit Estes Park 2022 Operating
Plan, and it passed unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION 81-21 ESTABLISHING 2022 SEASONAL PAID PARKING AND
PARKING PERMIT FEES. On October 26, 2021 staff presented results from the
2021 paid parking season and recommendations for the 2022 paid parking program.
Staff recommended focusing on improving the existing operation and customer
experience rather than expanding the program and/or raising the fees. The seasonal
paid parking program for the 2022 summer guest season would operate from May
27, 2022 through October 26, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., seven days a
week, at $2.00 per hour. Paid parking would encompass 682 total spaces in the
following same eight public parking areas as utilized in 2021: Town Hall, Bond Park,
E. Riverside, Riverside, Virginia, the Post Office, Weist and Tregent. Manager
Solesbee stated 69% of all parking in Estes Park and 33% of parking in the
downtown core would remain free of charge. Staff proposed working actively with
the Estes Chamber of Commerce during the 2021-2022 winter season to address
concerns raised by the Chamber at the October 26, 2021 study session. Staff
reviewed the goals of the paid parking program: make parking available and support
the economic vitality of the downtown area, encourage adequate turnover and use
of the perimeter parking areas including the parking structure and use of the Town’s
free shuttle service and reduce congestion. Staff stated their commitment to utilize
customer feedback on operations to invest in the customer experience, streamline
permitting, remove friction in going downtown, develop unified branded signage, and
provide safe late-night transport for all members of the community and visitors. Ann
Finley/Town Citizen and member of the Transportation Advisory Board commended
the efforts on a long process of gathering input and adjusting to new data related to DRAFTPage 5
Board of Trustees – November 9, 2021 – Page 4
paid parking and stated her support in the Town joining the long line of mountain
town communities implementing paid parking. Donna Carlson, Estes Chamber of
Commerce Executive Director stated her support for building a partnership with the
Town to form a task-force to activate the initiatives identified by Town staff for 2022.
It was moved and seconded (Younglund/MacAlpine) to approve Resolution 81-
21, and it passed unanimously.
Whereupon Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m.
Wendy Koenig, Mayor
Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk DRAFTPage 6
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado November 9, 2021
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the
Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 9th day of November, 2021.
Board: Mayor Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink, Trustees Bangs,
Cenac, MacAlpine, Webermeier, and Younglund
Attending: Mayor Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink, Trustees Cenac,
MacAlpine, Webermeier, and Younglund
Also Attending: Assistant Town Administrator Damweber, Town Attorney
Kramer, Recording Secretary Disney, Director Hudson,
Director Muhonen, and Engineer Waters
Absent: Trustee Bangs and Town Administrator Machalek
Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m.
TABOR RESTRICTIONS/DE-BRUCING.
Director Hudson presented further information on TABOR restrictions and de-Brucing
regarding the 2022 General Municipal Election proposed ballot question. The proposed
ballot question would determine whether the Town, without increasing or imposing new
taxes, could be authorized to collect, retain, spend or reserve all revenues from all
lawful sources and remove any limitations imposed by the November 7, 2000 Ballot
Measure. He highlighted the TABOR revenue limitations, the current de-Brucing clause
and problems associated with provisions and restrictions, specified accounting,
specified and ineligible uses of funds, proposed solutions and options, and the
proposed ballot language.
The Board discussed current Town debts, options for using de-Bruced funds,
investment options, property tax increases, potential changes to TABOR in the future,
personnel expense growth assumptions, effects of any future elections on the current
de-Brucing clause and next steps. Assistant Town Administrator Damweber
emphasized the importance of the ballot question and the Board directed staff to adjust
the language regarding property tax for clarification and simplification to be presented at
a future Town Board meeting.
STORMWATER UTILITY.
Director Muhonen and Engineer Waters provided a history of the Stormwater Utility and
highlighted previous efforts on the utility, and meetings held with Larimer County. Staff
recommended the formation of a stormwater utility, the inclusion of parcels within the
former Estes Valley Development Code boundary, and inclusion of a sales tax revenue
component to lower user fees.
The Board discussed establishing a stormwater utility, cooperation with Larimer County
for the utility, previously proposed user fees, sales tax percentages, previous public
outreach, multi-faceted funding options, and phased implementation. The Board
directed staff to continue cooperative efforts with Larimer County utilizing updated
information on user fees and sales tax funding options.
COMMUNITY AND FAMILY ADVISORY BOARD.
Assistant Town Administrator Damweber presented the discussion on the Community
and Family Advisory Board (CFAB) and highlighted the purpose, productivity, initiative,
and necessity of CFAB. Vice-Chair Almond spoke about the establishment of CFAB, DRAFTPage 7
Town Board Study Session – November 9, 2021 – Page 2
formerly the Family Advisory Board, defining ‘family’, and need for additional Board
direction.
The Board discussed establishing a task force for needs which may arise, CFAB
Member concerns, and the broad focus of CFAB. The Board determined for Trustees
MacAlpine and Younglund to create recommendations on how to proceed with CFAB
for Board review.
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES.
Assistant Town Administrator Damweber presented the discussion on Arts in Public
Places and highlighted a memorandum from Parks Advisory Board (PAB) Chair Elliot
which provided the following recommendations: development of an Arts Master Plan,
establish an arts-focused board with curatorial staff involvement, and engage existing
community arts organizations.
The Board discussed PAB providing further input to the Board, the Arts Master Plan,
cooperation with the Arts District and other entities, asset maintenance and staffing
needs. The Board directed staff to schedule an additional study session discussion with
representatives of PAB.
TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
None.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
Assistant Town Administrator Damweber requested scheduling a 2021 Rocky Mountain
National Park Overview and 2022 Plan and it was determined to schedule this as a
Report & Discussion item at the November 23, 2021 regular Town Board meeting.
There being no further business, Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 6:37 p.m.
Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary DRAFTPage 8
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 11, 2021
Minutes of a Special meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall and Virtually in
said Town of Estes Park on the 11th day of November, 2021.
Present: Wendy Koenig, Mayor
Patrick Martchink, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Marie Cenac
Barbara MacAlpine
Scott Webermeier
Cindy Younglund
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator
Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: Carlie Bangs, Trustee
Mayor Koeing called the special meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so,
recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
LIQUOR LICENSE AUTHORITY:
Kristin Brown/Special Prosecutor reviewed the stipulation agreement that if approved the
licensee would admit to violations of C.R.S. 44-3-901(1)(a): to sell or serve any alcohol
beverage to a visibly intoxicated person and C.R.S. 44-3-301(3)(a): to allow any other
person to exercise the privileges of its liquor license with a suspension of 50 days with 15
days served from December 5, 2021 through December 19, 2021 and 35 days held in
abeyance for one year from the acceptance of the agreement. A third violation of C.R.S.
44-3-4113(9) would be dismissed with the acceptance of the stipulation agreement. The
agreement also outlines the requirement for training of the current staff within 60 days of
the Findings and Order and all future staff within 60 days of the start of employment.
Discussion was heard among the authority on the payment of a fine in lieu of serving the
suspension, the dates of the suspension, and the licenses past history of violations and
fines. Special Prosecutor Brown stated the licensee was cited in 2012 for the same
violation by the Colorado Liquor Enforcement Division for allowing Mr. Rojas to operate
the privileges of the liquor license. Mr. Proffitt commented he would discuss with the
licensee their option to petition to pay a fine in lieu of serving the suspension.
It was moved and seconded (Martchink/Webermeier) to approve the terms and
conditions of the Stipulation Agreement and authorize Chair Koenig sign the
Findings and Order after Ms. Santana Gonzalez has signed the Stipulation
Agreement, and it passed with Trustee Younglund voting “No”.
Whereupon Mayor Koenig returned to the Town Board meeting and adjourned the
meeting at 4:25 p.m.
Wendy Koenig, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk DRAFTPage 9
Page 10
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 19, 2021
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the ESTES PARK PLANNING
COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado.
Meeting held VIRTUALLY in said Town of Estes Park on the 19 day of
October 2021.
Committee: Chair Matt Comstock, Vice-Chair Matthew Heiser,
Commissioners Joe Elkins, Howard Hanson, Janene
Centurione.
Attending: Chair Comstock, Vice-Chair Heiser, Commissioner Elkins,
Commissioner Hanson, Director Jessica Garner, Senior
Planner Jeff Woeber, Planner II Alex Bergeron, Recording
Secretary Karin Swanlund, Attorney Dan Kramer, Town Board
Liaison Barbara MacAlpine
Absent: Commissioner Centurione
Chair Comstock called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Also attending were Logan
Graves and Mike Scholl, Ayres Associates consultants.
AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Heiser/Hanson) to approve the agenda. The motion
passed 4-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
Due to technical issues, the public was not let into the meeting until 1:45 p.m. Attorney
Kramer noted that public comment is not typically allowed on discussion items. Two
members of the public were allowed to speak later in the meeting, both expressing their
frustration of not being able to join at the start.
CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL
It was moved and seconded (Hanson/Elkins) to approve the consent agenda. The
motion passed 4-0.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Planner II Bergeron continued discussion on the proposed code amendment
regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’S). Code language revisions since the
last meeting consist of eliminating the off-street parking requirement and
prohibition of home occupation provisions. Enforcement of minimum lot size for
the zoning district sets clear language on what properties ADUs will be allowed.
Variances for “uses” are not allowed. Bergeron reviewed questions brought up by
the public, including that 30-day rentals are universally accepted as “long-term
rentals” in local codes and don’t require property management; ADU’s are very
different from Vacation Homes; street parking will be allowed where it is already
permitted and not permitted where it currently isn’t. It was agreed to bring this
Code Amendment to the November 16 Planning Commission meeting for public
hearing.
Public Comment: Rick Ralph, 395 Park View Lane, commented on the lack of
restrictions. Note: most comments were inaudible. It was requested Mr. Ralph
submit an email outlining his concerns.
2. Mike Scholl, Ayres Associates, spoke on strategies to increase attainable
housing supply. Staff identified a new density bonus zone district as one viable
solution, RM-2. This zone district would increase general housing production and
incentivize attainable housing development. Two tiers of bonuses would be
enabled: Tier 1 (base entitlement) would allow up to 16 units per acre; Tier 2
would allow up to 32 units per acre (4x the current RM/Residential-multifamily
zone). Questions for discussion were proposed, including where would RM-2
Page 11
Planning Commission – October 19, 2021 – Page 2
apply, what standards would apply and the targeted population. Considerable
debate on these questions was had. Director Garner stated that proposals would
be thoroughly researched and evaluated using existing criteria. Attorney Kramer
pointed out that rezoning standards are in the Development Code, and it is the
job of the Planning Commission to determine if the plan is in line with the
Comprehensive Plan. A video presentation created by Ayres of 32 units/acre
developments will be shared with the Commission. This amendment will be
revisited at the December 21 Planning Commission Meeting, and an online public
forum will be scheduled before that time.
3. Director Garner reviewed the RE-1 Zoning District, explaining that it is a residential
zoning district that requires a 10-acre minimum lot size. There are only three
parcels zoned RE-1, one owned by the Town of Estes Park, the other two owned
by Rocky Mountain National Park. Rezoning these parcels to RE would be the
first step, followed by eliminating the RE-1 zone district from the Estes Park
Development Code and the Estes Park Municipal Code. There will be a virtual
community/neighborhood meeting on November 1 to discuss this. The public
hearing is scheduled to take place at the November 16 Planning Commission
meeting.
REPORTS:
Director Garner reviewed the progress of the Comprehensive Plan. Virtual visioning
workshops will be held on November 3 and November 17.
Public Comment: Rex Poggehpohl, town citizen, suggested the following: RM-2 zoning
should be aligned along the traffic corridors, not in other residential areas; 24 units/acre
instead of 32; all RM districts should have heavy buffers between zoning districts;
minimum lot size should be used as well as minimum and maximum parking
requirements.
There being no further business, Chair Comstock adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m.
Matt Comstock, Chair
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
Page 12
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 21, 2021
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory
Committee of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting
held via ZOOM in said Town of Estes Park on October 21 2021.
Committee: Chair Matthew Heiser, Vice-Chair Bob Leavitt, Members
David Bangs, Eric Blackhurst, Kirby Nelson-Hazelton, John
Schnipkoweit, Karen Thompson, Rose Truman, David Wolf,
David Shirk, Matt Comstock, Mike Kennedy
Also Attending: Community Development Director Jessica Garner, Larimer
County Community Development Director Lesli Ellis, Trustee
Barbara MacAlpine, Senior Planner Jeff Woeber, Recording
Secretary Karin Swanlund
Absent: Kennedy, Shirk, Comstock
Chair Heiser called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
The motion passed with a visual thumbs-up vote.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
None
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Approval of Minutes from October 7, 2021
2. Approval of updated Bylaws. It was requested to pull the Bylaws off consent
and move to an action item.
It was moved and seconded (Leavitt/Bangs) to approve the minutes. The motion passed
with a visual thumbs-up vote.
ACTION ITEM:
The updated Bylaws have a reference to CFAB instead of CompPac. The mistake has
been corrected.
It was moved and seconded (Cooper/Leavitt) to approve the Bylaws. The motion passed
with a visual thumbs-up vote.
DISCUSSION ITEMS: (all comments have been summarized)
Miriam McGilvray, Project Manager for Logan Simpson, discussed how the outreach
would be handled and the expectations of the Committee members. It is important to
remember who to engage and get the word out about upcoming Community Visioning
Events. Chair Heiser asked that Logan Simpson tell the Committee what they are looking
for from the community engagement, a “meeting in a box.” Member Thompson noted
that talking points and standard answers would help with outreach. Director Garner
shared the engageestes.org website is the best place to send people who have questions.
Vice-Chair Leavitt asked for the list of stakeholders be shared with the Committee.
The “Snapshot” document was centered around already engaged stakeholders, and the
33 interviews are not nearly enough to base the plan data on. The information was
obtained by a joint effort from the consulting teams. The 2020 census data is trickling in,
and only pieces of that were used.
Member Blackhurst asked how the taxing districts that have presented at the CompPac
meetings fit into the scope of the Comprehensive Plan. Director Garner stated that a
Comp Plan isn’t a regulatory document but a guidebook to form the common goal that
encompasses all aspects of a community, “the should”; the Development Code is “the
Page 13
CompPAC – Oct, 21, 2021 – Page 2
shall.” The role of all the “players” is essential to understand.
Next steps: after the engagement process, a summary of the data collected will be done,
and a joint meeting with the Estes Valley Comp Plan Committee will be held in December
to present the results.
The November 18 meeting will host Cato Kraft from EPNRC and Ruben Bergsten from
the Utilities Department. Both sanitation districts will speak at the December 2 meeting.
There being no further business, Chair Heiser adjourned the meeting at 10:20 a.m.
Karin Swanlund, Recording Secretary
Page 14
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, October 11, 2021
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the COMMUNITY AND FAMILY
ADVISORY BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado.
Meeting held Virtually in said Town of Estes Park on the 11th day of October,
2021.
Committee: Chair Dale Marshall, Vice Chair Almond, Members Brown,
Bryant, DeLorme, Douglas and Strom
Attending: Chair Dale Marshall, Vice Chair Almond, Members Brown,
Bryant, DeLorme, Douglas and Strom, Town Board Liaison
Younglund, Assistant Town Administrator Damweber and
Deputy Town Clerk Beers
Absent: None
Chair Dale Marshall called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.
WELCOME NEW MEMBER.
The Community and Family Advisory Board (CFAB) welcomed new member Patti Brown
who provided an overview of her experience and background.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
Christy Crosser/Town of Estes Park Grant Specialist requested promotion and
participation in Larimer County’s Child Safety Survey and would be sending information
to staff for distribution to the CFAB.
TRUSTEE AND STAFF LIAISON UPDATE.
Liaison Younglund attended a ribbon cutting at the Trailblazer Broadband location and
the Time Emporium Escape Rooms noting their family friendly challenge. She stated the
2022 Budget would be reviewed by the Town Board at the October 26, 2021 and
November 9, 2021 meetings.
Assistant Town Administrator Damweber stated a Town Board Study Session item has
been scheduled for November 9, 2021 to discuss CFAB and the level of productivity,
clarity and direction in directives from the Town Board. Chair Dale Marshall requested
clarification on participation during the meeting and encouraged CFAB members to
attend.
Comprehensive Plan Engagement - Assistant Town Administrator Damweber
presented the Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan Existing Conditions Snapshots
produced by the CompPAC and plan consultant. He stated the plan focuses on land use
and may contain elements which relate to the focus area of CFAB. The CompPAC would
be holding additional engagement opportunities in November. More details related to the
comprehensive plan are available at www.engageestes.org.
2021 Strategic Plan Check-In – An overview of the Strategic Plan objective was
provided highlighting items which staff are currently working on related to workforce
housing and childcare initiatives. The Town Board would be scheduling a Study Session
to discuss a Town owned property with potential to be utilized as a childcare center. The
proposed 2022 Budget incorporated Workforce Housing General Fund reserves which
would be utilized to address workforce housing infrastructure at the Town owned Fish
Hatchery property.
2022 Strategic Plan – Assistant Town Administrator Damweber reviewed the workforce
housing and childcare related items in the 2022 Strategic Plan including: Negotiate
development agreement with AmericaWest for Workforce Housing on the Fish Hatchery
site; evaluate additional funding streams for the workforce housing reserve fund;
participate in the County Strategic Plan childcare capacity team; and establish a reserve
fund to fund investment in childcare. Discussion ensued regarding building height code
Page 15
Community and Family Advisory Board – October 11, 2021 – Page 2
changes and how the building height changes in the code could help address needs
related to childcare and locations for childcare centers. Vice Chair Almond questioned the
appropriate times to provide input from the CFAB regarding strategic plan objectives
which relate to the CFAB focus area. An overview of Base Funding and Community
Initiative Funding was provided to the CFAB.
Workforce Housing – Assistant Town Administrator Damweber would meet with the
workforce housing consultant AmericaWest to discuss the Town owned Fish Hatchery
property site and workforce housing development. He stated a grant application has been
submitted to the Department of Local Affairs which could be applied towards a housing
needs assessment. At the September 14, 2021 Town Board meeting staff were directed
to pursue a fee study related to the nexus between residential short-term rentals and
workforce housing.
MEETING MINUTES DATED JUNE 3, 2021 AND SEPTEMBER 2, 2021.
It was moved and seconded (Almond\Strom) to approved the minutes dated June 3, 2021
and September 2, 2021 and it passed unanimously.
ADVOCACY AT TOWN BOARD MEETINGS.
Chair Dale Marshall and Member Brown would provide public comment during the
October 12, 2021 Town Board meeting to provide a brief overview of CFAB efforts.
DISCUSSION OF DRAFTED RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD.
Discussion ensued regarding CFAB recommendations and has been summarized:
Whether the CFAB should identify and recommend a specific dollar amount for the
Childcare Reserve Fund (CRF), based on a percentage of the known need in the
community as identified in the Childcare Needs Assessment; how the Workforce Housing
Reserve Fund amount was determined and if a similar method could be used for the CRF;
would creating the CRF replace the annual $10,000 provided by the Town for childcare
needs, and whether annual unallocated funds are rolled into the following year. It was
moved and seconded (Brown/Almond) to bring forward recommendations presented by
CFAB provided below in verbatim to the Town Board, and it passed unanimously:
• Town Trustees shall direct Town Staff to develop policy that establishes a CRF
within the Town Budget, as set as a goal in the current Strategic Plan, that has the
ability to grow over time and may be utilized to increase childcare capacity and
early education opportunities, and that shall be modeled after the existing Housing
Reserve Fund.
• Support the efforts of community partners by offering the services and expertise of
Town Staff in the development of a comprehensive inventory of existing buildings,
buildable spaces, and future development that could include a childcare
component by offering the services and expertise of Town Staff.
• Engage in partnership with community-based organization Estes Valley
Investment in Childhood Success (EVICS) Family Resource Center) to explore the
viability of Town owned property located at 179 Stanley Circle for use as a
childcare/early education site.
CFAB was in agreement to provide the Town Board a summary of the discussions related
to defining the term family.
There being no further business Chair Dale Marshall adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m.
Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk
Page 16
TOWN CLERK’S OFFICE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: November 23, 2021
RE: Appointment of Frank Theis to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory
Committee to complete the term of Michael Kennedy.
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER Appointment__
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
To consider the recommended appointment for the Comprehensive Plan Advisory
Committee (CompPAC).
Present Situation:
Michael Kennedy resigned from his non-voting position on CompPAC effective
November 2, 2021. Due to time constraints of the Comprehensive Plan and to expedite
the appointment process, the interview committee, consisting of Mayor Koenig and
Trustee MacAlpine, determined to recommend the appointment of a former applicant
from the application process held in May 2021. Mr. Theis had previously applied for a
position on the committee and expressed continued interest in the committee’s
endeavors.
Proposal:
The interview committee recommends the appointment of Frank Theis to complete the
term of Michael Kennedy expiring upon the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan,
expected to be completed in late December 2022.
Advantages:
Filling the position would complete the eleven-member committee.
Disadvantages:
If the appointment is not made, the position would remain vacant until the position could
be advertised and interviews conducted.
Action Recommended:
Appoint Frank Theis to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee to complete the
term of Michael Kennedy.
Page 17
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approve/deny the appointment of Frank Theis to the Comprehensive
Plan Advisory Committee to complete the term of Michael Kennedy.
Attachments:
None.
Page 18
1616 17th Street, Suite 362 720-452-2646
Denver, CO 80202 RunProLaw.com
1
November 17, 2021
Via Email To: jwilliamson@estes.org
Estes Park Liquor Licensing Authority
c/o Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
RE: Petition for Acceptance of Fine-in-Lieu of
Suspension
Galex, LLC d/b/a Chelitos Mexican Restaurant
145 E. Elkhorn Ave.
Estes Park, CO 80517
License No.: 42-68041-0000
Dear Estes Park Liquor Licensing Authority:
Pursuant to C.R.S. § 44-3-601(3)(a), Galex, LLC d/b/a Chelitos Mexican Restaurant
(“Chelitos”) hereby requests permission to pay a fine in lieu of the fifteen (15) days’ active
suspension set forth in the Stipulation recently finalized and accepted in response to the Order to
Show Cause dated August 10 and amended on October 12, 2021. For purposes of complying
with C.R.S. § 44-3-601(3)(a), Chelitos states as follows:
1.The public welfare and morals will not be impaired by permitting Chelitos to operate
during the period set for suspension and the payment of a fine will achieve the desired
disciplinary purposes; and,
2.The books and records of Chelitos are kept in such a manner that the loss of sales of
alcohol beverages that Chelitos would have suffered had the suspension gone into
effect can be determined with reasonable accuracy.
We look forward to the acceptance of this petition and confirmation of the stay of our active
suspension. Attached to this petition are sales figures for July 1 – 31, 2021 pursuant to Reg. 47-
603(F). These records show total alcohol sales of $16,221.38 for the 31-day period. By my
calculations, I believe that this results in a fine of $1,569.81. If you have any questions regarding
this petition, please feel free to contact me
Runco & Proffitt, P.C.
A Colorado Professional Corporation
Brian C. Proffitt, Esq.
Attachment
Brian Proffitt, Esq.*
BProffitt@RunProLaw.com
*Admitted to Practice in Colorado
Page 19
1616 17th Street, Suite 362 720-452-2646
Denver, CO 80202 RunProLaw.com
2
cc: Client
Ms. Kristin Brown (knbpc@msn.com)
Page 20
Report by day 7/1/2021 to 7/31/21Report by day 7/1/2021 to 7/31/22
Date Super Group Quantity Order Count Gross
7/1/21 ALCOHOL 12 9 $112.60
7/1/21 BEER 23 10 $99.66 Super Group
7/2/21 ALCOHOL 50 21 $460.50 ALCOHOL
7/2/21 BEER 25 14 $118.40 BEER
7/3/21 ALCOHOL 72 26 $646.95
7/3/21 BEER 47 21 $213.79
7/4/21 ALCOHOL 62 29 $591.15
7/4/21 BEER 62 24 $281.08
5/7/21 ALCOHOL 41 22 $396.91
7/5/21 BEER 27 16 $123.51
7/6/21 ALCOHOL 34 17 $335.98
7/6/21 BEER 11 9 $47.70
7/7/21 ALCOHOL 31 19 $303.29
7/7/21 BEER 13 11 $55.36
7/8/21 ALCOHOL 24 15 $241.21
7/8/21 BEER 19 12 $82.61
7/9/21 ALCOHOL 59 27 $618.51
7/9/21 BEER 6 5 $33.22
7/10/21 ALCOHOL 38 21 $375.43
7/10/21 BEER 52 22 $245.73
7/11/21 ALCOHOL 38 22 $367.95
7/11/21 BEER 47 19 $256.39
7/12/21 ALCOHOL 29 15 $272.45
7/12/21 BEER 32 14 $160.99
7/13/21 ALCOHOL 40 25 $341.60
7/13/21 BEER 20 12 $101.36
7/14/21 ALCOHOL 47 25 $450.42
7/14/21 BEER 26 15 $126.48
7/15/21 ALCOHOL 29 18 $263.15
7/15/21 BEER 15 11 $74.95
7/16/21 ALCOHOL 25 14 $239.77
7/16/21 BEER 19 11 $97.52
7/17/21 ALCOHOL 46 27 $423.81
7/17/21 BEER 38 20 $195.87
7/18/21 ALCOHOL 37 19 $358.51
7/18/21 BEER 26 14 $133.72
Page 21
7/19/21 ALCOHOL 34 18 $326.54
7/19/21 BEER 22 13 $106.02
7/20/21 ALCOHOL 24 14 $233.43
7/20/21 BEER 21 11 $105.61
7/21/21 ALCOHOL 14 9 $147.81
7/21/21 BEER 13 9 $60.48
7/22/21 ALCOHOL 31 16 $276.57
7/22/21 BEER 21 10 $105.61
7/23/21 ALCOHOL 34 22 $286.44
7/23/21 BEER 37 21 $192.05
7/24/21 ALCOHOL 101 42 $964.51
7/24/21 BEER 47 25 $252.54
7/25/21 ALCOHOL 36 25 $367.04
7/25/21 BEER 31 18 $169.49
7/26/21 ALCOHOL 47 25 $457.76
7/26/21 BEER 33 15 $165.66
7/27/21 ALCOHOL 43 20 $390.58
7/27/21 BEER 20 14 $111.16
7/28/21 ALCOHOL 24 13 $210.78
7/28/21 BEER 18 13 $87.31
7/29/21 ALCOHOL 41 22 $394.53
7/29/21 BEER 22 13 $113.71
7/30/21 ALCOHOL 30 17 $275.62
7/30/21 BEER 30 16 $157.16
7/31/21 ALCOHOL 59 23 $620.93
7/31/21 BEER 42 18 $225.73
Total Alcohol + BEER16,053.57$
PLUS WINE $167.81
16,221.38$
Page 22
Quantity Order Count Gross
1232 637 $11,752.73
865 456 $4,300.84
Page 23
Page 24
11/24/2021
Rocky Mountain National Park Updates
Rocky Mountain National Park
Agenda
•Overview Timed Entry System 2021
•Proposed Plan for 2022
•Long Term Visitor Use Management Plan
•Fire Recovery
•Proposed Fee Increases
•Fall River Entrance Construction
•Campground and Interpretive Programs
Page 25
11/24/2021
Rocky Mountain National Park
Timed Entry Permit System
Review of 2021 Pilot and Proposed 2022 Pilot
Rocky Mountain National Park
Visitor Use Management Strategy Pilots
•Rocky Mountain National Park is one of the busiest national parks,
3rd in 2019 with over 4.6 million visitors
•Since 2016, the park has piloted various visitor use management
strategies to address the increased visitation and to help lessen
increased negative impacts to visitor and staff safety, resource
protection, visitor experience and operational capacity: restricting
vehicle access on the Bear Lake Road, Wild Basin Area, and Alpine
Visitor Center areas when congestion warrants
Page 26
11/24/2021
Rocky Mountain National Park
•These first-come, first-serve restrictions had some limited
success initially, but over time began to lose effectiveness:
length of time they were necessary kept expanding, impacts
were pushed elsewhere, a variety of safety concerns
persisted, and visitors were not able to plan their visit
•Implemented Timed Entry Permit System pilots in both 2020
and 2021
Visitor Use Management Strategy Pilots
Rocky Mountain National Park
Highlights and Lessons Learned 2021 Pilot
•Separate reservations for Bear Lake Road Corridor (5am-6pm) and
“Rest of the Park” (9am-3pm) worked well
•Visitors were well spread out throughout the day and the park, better
protecting resources and utilizing park infrastructure, avoiding traffic
congestion, and improved visitor experience for those in the park
•The shorter “Rest of the Park” reservation window aided those without
reservations, cross-park travel, local visitors, and spontaneous visits
•30% “no-show” reservation rate in June; adjustments were made in
early July to account for this by increasing the number of ‘day before’
5pm reservations
Page 27
11/24/2021
Rocky Mountain National Park
Measuring Success of the 2021 Pilot
How do we know it’s working:
•Tracking visitor use patterns through traffic and trail counters
•Adaptive management
•Tracking trail impacts: trash, human waste, and visitor-created
trails and trail widening
•Staff survey
•Visitor Experience Survey (Launched in Oct. 2021)
Median Vehicles/Day = 3127
Page 28
11/24/2021
Comparisons Across Years
Rocky Mountain National Park
Proposed 2022 Pilot
•Proposing to utilize virtually the same Timed Entry Reservation
system from 2021
•Reservations based on ~90% of the parking and transit
capacity: approx. 20,000 visitors per day, 7,200 vehicles
•Minor adjustments to reservation windows, times and numbers,
additional reservations for 5p ‘day before’ sales
•Option to purchase entrance pass through recreation.gov
•In effect from May 27 through October 10
•Rolling reservations beginning May 2
Page 29
11/24/2021
Rocky Mountain National Park
Long Range Visitor Use Planning Update
•Initial Pre-NEPA civic engagement completed in May 2021,
public comments and summary report release in Jan 2022
•Complete the established Interagency Visitor Use
Management framework
•Visitor survey and socioeconomic study in 2022
•NEPA planning process to begin winter 2022/23
•Public comment on draft alternatives in Spring 2023
•Decision document by end of 2023
Page 30
11/24/2021
Fire
Recovery
Rocky Mountain National Park
Fire Recovery Efforts
• 25 miles of trails have reopened, 29 miles
of the most impacted trails remain closed
• Exotic plant monitoring and treatments
across burned trails and suppression
areas
• Monitoring of fish, amphibians, and critical
habitat in burned areas
• Moving forward with replacing lost
structures
Page 31
11/24/2021
Rocky Mountain National Park
Proposed Entrance and Campground Fee Increase
The park is proposing a $5 increase to the Daily
Vehicle Entrance fee (other fees remain the same)
Summer fees would increase from $30 to $35 at four
park campgrounds
Winter campground fee would increase from $20 to
$35 per night at Moraine Park Campground
Group campsite fees in Glacier Basin Campground
would increase by $10 per night – will vary based on
size of group
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/RMNP_FEES_2022
comments taken through January 7, 2022
Rocky Mountain National Park
Fall River
Entrance
Construction &
Water &
Wastewater
Rehab
Page 32
11/24/2021
Rocky Mountain National Park
2022 Campground Operations
Interpretive Ranger Programs
Questions?
Page 33
RMNP Public Comment
Fwd: ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT - Tuesday, November 23, 2021 In Person
Meeting
Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:15 PM
RE: 2021 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK OVERVIEW AND 2022 PLAN
Dear Mayor Koenig:
DOI's NPS has made a lifetime agreement with Golden Pass holders. How is it right and just for ROMO to unilaterally
abrogate these terms of service?
Sincerely,
Paul Dianish
Fwd: ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT - Tuesday, November 23, 2021 In Person
Meeting
Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:16 PM
RE: 2021 ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK OVERVIEW AND 2022 PLAN
Dear Mayor Koenig:
ROMO’s 5:00 A.M. deadline is unduly and unreasonably penalizing and punitive for climbers entering RMNP for
access to some of the Park’s highest peaks.
Sincerely,
Paul Dianish
Fwd: agenda item: Superintendent Sidles from RMNP
Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:47 PM
I respectfully ask the trustees to raise the following question with Superintendent Sidles:
Why present the 2022 park entrance plan to the trustees prior to the general public? You (Sidles) serve federal
taxpayers and the public are at your mercy to gain entrance to RMNP.
To the trustees:
I ask that you consider how rationing entrance to RMNP affects all the businesses in Estes Park. How many people
will choose other destinations for their last-minute plans because they cannot obtain a park reservation at a
reasonable time or at all?
Further I ask the trustees how Estes Park residents feel about not having ready access to the park that initially drew
them to move to the community.
About myself: I live in Madison WI, have visited Estes Park/RMNP 20 times in the past 30 years, each stay lasting a
week, have friends that reside in Estes Park, subscribe to the Estes Park Trail Gazette, love the park, HATE the
reservation system.
Sincerely,
Kathy J Killian
Public Comment received 11-23-2021 by noon
Page 34
RMNP Public Comment
Fwd: Questions for Board Meeting on Tuesday November 23, 2021
Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:52 PM
Gentle persons,
I have always enjoyed RMNP for close to 50 years and each time I have stopped in Estes Park. Sometimes it's for a
simple cup of coffee or hot coco, sometimes it's for a meal with several friends or family, many from out of state, and
frequently it's to shop the local stores. I even drive up to Estes Park just to shop. Had it not been for the beautiful
public lands of RMNP on the outskirts of Estes Park I never would've begun shopping in Estes however, my family,
friends and I got hooked so to speak. The Parks timed entry system and how it currently operates didn't allow me to
visit RMNP at all in 2021. That's a first for me and thus the first time I was not able to, or rather allowed to due to the
entry system, support Estes Park local businesses.
When you meet with Superintendent Sidles at tomorrow night's meeting I would appreciate it if you would point out the
obvious loss of support for local business and ask her specifically what will change in 2022 so you do not lose
business. I'm not the only person living in close surrounding areas that have not only enjoyed our public lands but
have supported Estes Park. We are the ones who come into town after visiting the park on a year round basis and not
just during the summer. If we can't come during the summer than we will find other places to go and in turn go to
those places year round so your business will drop off. I for one have been so irritated that I was not able to get into
RMNP this year, knowing that the trustees of Estes support the superintendent, that I will not come up this winter and
will not do my normal Christmas shopping in Estes this year. Friends who've come up with me will also not be
coming. It may appear that loosing a few people won't matter but there are many, many like me who will go
elsewhere. There are other places that will welcome us. This is simply the way things happen in life and Estes Parks
business owners will suffer. Those people helped elect you and I know I would not be happy if those I elected did not
watch out for my best interests.
Please ask Ms. Sidles to provide the public with the exact reasons for timed entry as we have not seen any studies
proving a need for this system. We have not seen any reports regarding how many support or don't support the timed
entry system.
Please ask Ms. Sildes why she chose to meet Thanksgiving week when many people who want to attend this meeting
are out of town? Please also ask why the public has not been notified of this meeting where by all appearances she
intends to announce her decision on times entry for 2022? This effects more than the people in Estes Park. The public
is far more wide spread than that and given this is a National Park, it involves notification to everyone in the United
States of America. Many people are already traveling across the country this week to be with family so I would
seriously like to know why now and greatly appreciate you asking this specific question.
I am so sad thinking that this all means RMNP's superintendent will put the same timed entry system into place for
2022 and years to come that we had in 2021, which in turn means I will never again have the freedom to visit the
public lands I've loved so much for so long, that I'm on the verge of tears writing this to you. I don't understand why
the elected officials of Estes Park who seem to support this,suddenly want me to stay away from Estes Park. To you I
have to ask, what did I do that you don't want my business any more?
I hope you will respect my request to kindly ask my questions to Superintendent Sidles and also answer my question
to you. I don't know what I did to harm you.
Regards,
Mary Doyle
Fwd: Sources for Park visitation and fee numbers Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:55 PM
Hi Mayor and Trustees and Travis,
Page 35
RMNP Public Comment
Hope this finds you well and looking forward to a relaxing Thanksgiving holiday with family and friends. I learned
yesterday afternoon that RMNP is on the agenda at tonight's meeting. Glad I found out!
I've submitted a public comment on Superintendent Sidles presentation. Below are the links from which I gathered the
facts I summarized in my comment. I wanted to provide them to make sure there was no confusion about where I got
my information or whether it's accurate.
One the 33% increase in visitors over the last ten years (not 44%) and the lowest number of year-to-date
visitors to RMNP since 2015:
https://irma.nps.gov/STATS/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Monthly%20Public%20Use?Park=ROMO
On RMNP being the only Park in the system with Park-wide reservations required as a matter of visitor use
management (not pandemic related):
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/experience/america/national-parks/2021/09/03/national-parks-reservation-
requirements-phasing-out-after-labor-day/5682052001/
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/california/yosemite/article254754022.html
On Superintendent Sidles having a history of increasing fees to the public for access to public lands (2015
and 2016 in Saguaro, 2018 in RMNP):
https://www.nps.gov/sagu/learn/news/news-release-proposed-fee-increase.htm
https://www.tucsonaz.gov/ward-2/news/saguaro-national-park-seeks-public-comment-regarding-proposed-user-fee-
increase
https://www.nps.gov/romo/learn/news/rocky-mountain-national-park-changes-entrance-fee-to-address-infrastructure-
needs-and-improve-visitor-experience.htm
From your previous communications on this matter, I understand your views and your willingness to go along with the
Park's 'pilot projects' at visitor use management. And as always I appreciate you taking the time to engage with me
and others who staunchly oppose long-term restrictions on Rocky.
The data suggest that reservations are a solution in search of a problem. THe real problem is the Parks' management
and available resources. The data also suggest the Superintendent has a history of raising fees for public use while
limiting public access to public lands. That's a disturbing trend, especially for locals and retirees who live in (or have
moved) to the Estes Valley specifically to enjoy the physical and mental health benefits of being close to RMNP
(needed now more than ever).
You may also be unaware that in previous communications with me, based on a review of no shows and unused
reservations over the summer of 2021, the Park said 20-25% of all reservations made went unused--this while
hundreds or thousands of people were turned away at the Park gates.
NPS says it compensates this for an 'industry practice' of over-selling the reservations and making more 'last minute'
reservations available at 5pm the night before. But surely this defeats the stated mantra of planning your visit to the
Park ahead of time. It's the opposite of planning. And it's needlessly keeping tens of thousands of Americans out of
the Park when there's plenty of room for them to enjoy its trails, roads, and views.
If the Park has had fewer visitors, year-to-date in 2021, then there was no Covid Crush (as they assured us there
would be). We didn't need reservations in previous years. We certainly don't need them in 2022. And you need to take
a much more sceptical look at the stated reasons why RMNP thinks this is necessary. For example...
• Why does RMNP continue to quote a historical 44% increase over ten years when the numbers say
otherwise?
• Why does RMNP continue to create the impression that National Parks everywhere are implementing similar
visitor restrictions when the facts show this is simply not the case?
Page 36
RMNP Public Comment
• Why are we seeing plans about 2022 when all the public feedback submitted on the long-term plans in July
has yet to be made public?
I know the Park will say that the 'pilot programs' and 'long term plans' are totally separate and one has nothing to do
with the other. But this is a deceptive way of handling the facts. The Park has public feedback on what the people
think about reservations. It should make that feedback public now, before any plans for 2022 are finalized. The public
should be treated as an equal partner. After all, public lands belong to the people.
I have no I idea how advanced (or final) the plans are for 2022. So maybe I'm jumping the gun. But the Park tends to
make policy first and ask questions later, when it comes to restrictions. And I believe the data support the conclusion
that the justifications for both the timed-entry pilot programs and long-term visitor use management plans don't hold
up to scrutiny.
I DO think everyone of good faith can agree that the Park needs more resources, better management, and more
education of the 'bad actors' that have created the isolated problems NPS has tried to solve with a blanket reservation
system that punishes all Americans (the poorest affected the most).
Elected officials and legislators are the way to fix this, not higher fees and less access. Let's shift the operational
funding burden of RMNP away from visitor fees and toward other sources in the Federal budget. Congressman
Neguse and Senators Bennet and Hickenlooper can lead the way.
You can do your part, too, by asking the questions that need to be asked. As the largest gateway community to
RMNP, you are the only public officials in a position to represent the concerns of your constituents in Estes Park, and
indeed all Coloradoans and visitors to RMNP. I sincerely hope you take the chance to do more than listen and directly
ask the Superintendent these (and other) important questions.
Respectfully,
Dan Denning
PS Surely you can't make plans for one year without reviewing--in public and transparently--how your system worked
the year before. If we end up with another late announcement in the spring of 2022 that reservations are coming back,
then I don't think you can conclude the Park is acting in good faith with respect to engaging with the public on long-
term management issues.
Sorry, one correction. Visitation is up 30.1% from September 2011 to September 2021 (2.92 million to 3.80 million).
Not 33% as I originally wrote. Averages out to a 3% increase per year. Certainly manageable...with the right
management and operational practices...and without restrictions.
Page 37
Start date Agenda_Item_Title Name Stance Comments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload
11/22/2021 5:33 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
Linda
Moak Against
We found it very difficult to obtain entry permits to the park and we’re disappointed
when guests came and we were unable to visit though we are local residents for
more than 20 years. We urge the town to not support any further impediments to
the park. Respectfully
11/22/2021 5:36 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
Alex W
Boucher Against
I am against the 2022 reservation plan for RMNP.
it unjustly restricts access for those that need it the most.
11/22/2021 6:20 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. John Doe Against
As a homeowner in Estes, I think the new reservation system keeps non locals out;
period. If that is what you want, so be it. Frankly, love my new personal National
Park playground! That said, I think it is too bad the Parks don’t scale like Disney to
INCREASE and EMBRACE larger numbers to Bear Lake and the Park. Build more
entrance kiosks, automated, and how about a new one or two Bear Lake sized new
trailheads with parking areas (Forest Canyon?). Heck, most folks just take a simple
walk, etc. so why not rebuild the Bear Lake Lodge too. In fact, let’s reinstate bonfires
on trail ridge lead by rangers, and while we are at it reopen Hidden Valley Skiing.
A natural preserve(?), get real! There needs to be a deep rethink about our Parks
and what they are.
Those of us that hike early, off into the depths of the park, don’t care about all the
people around tourist stuff. But if you still want to keep Americans out, that have
paid for everything thru taxes, have at it (:
11/22/2021 6:25 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
Jay
Detweiler Against
I am completely against the requirement of reservations to enter RMNP including
the Bear Lake Road. The RMNP is land set aside for all to use and should not be
restricted to a select few. The entry restrictions and Bear Lake Road restrictions
inacted by the RMNP superintendent violates the very purpose the park was
created. Access for all not just a select few.
Page 38
11/22/2021 6:47 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
Cydney
Thompson Against
Members of the Board,
I have been a resident of Estes Park for 17 years. I am deeply concerned and
disappointed in the restrictions placed on travellers and visitors to Rocky Mountain
National Park and Estes. As a manager of a business down town , the past two years
of the timed entry has been a source of contention with many of my customers.
The first year, most were upset, somewhat surprised, yet understanding because it
was labelled a " due to Covid" explanation. This past summer, it changed into open
hostility. Angered by NOT knowing due to extreme lack of information / advertising,
whom were unable to enter at desired times because of the restrictions. They would
then turn their efforts of a "visit" to shopping and dining downtown. Only to be met
by parking meters. Which further angered them. Confrontational questions and
statements such as , " We thought we would take a nice trip here, and we will never
come back". I can only see this worsen .
11/22/2021 6:55 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
Mary
Doyle Against
In the past I've enjoyed visiting Estes Park many times throughout the spring
summer and fall when I went to RMNP. I was unable to get in to RMNP in 2021 due
to timed entry always being full plus an additional cost. I don't like that I wasn't able
to support Estes local businesses each and every time I used to go up and I will no
long be able to support this beautiful town I've enjoyed the majority of my life if
timed entry remains in place. How sad I can't enjoy public lands I've paid into and
supported. Trustees of Estes Park, by supporting the Park's superintendent's silent
treatment toward the public by passing timed entry without public notices, has told
me I'm not good enough for their town after all these years. This is wrong and I
desire everyone reconsider reopening our public land, RMNP, to the public.
11/22/2021 7:09 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
Carolyn
Goers Against
I do NOT agree with continued restricted access to RMNP for 2022. It is especially
limiting for seniors, handicapped, and Coloradoans who are not able to schedule
visits in advance. Restricted reservation systems are especially discriminatory for
these groups.
Page 39
11/22/2021 7:26 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
2021
RMNP
Overview
and 2022
Plan Against
Requesting all trustees and the Mayor to call on Superintendent Sidles to resign
immediately for unfair, undemocratic and irresponsible management in her position.
This meeting is yet another example. The public is given less than 24 hours notice to
comment on a presentation that none of us has seen is ludicrous. Additionally,
Sidles should resign immediately and suspend the timed reservation system for the
following reasons: Asking for more money in entrance fees while making private
decisions about public access to the park. Explain the entire "punch pass" Process.
Whose idea was this? Who was approved the punch passes? How many were
issued? Why? Deceptive and misleading statements as to why a reservation system
was needed in the first place. Lack of accountability by refusing to publish public
feedback on NEPA until January 2022 AFTER announcing plans. Failure to engage the
public in meaningful dialog. Thomas Denning, Lafayette, CO
11/22/2021 8:23 PM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan. Dan King Against
We have lived in Loveland for 50 years, are nearing 80 years old, and have always
been able to take our out of state relatives and friends up to the Park as a special
treat. We were turned away twice this year because we couldn't get reservations. It
appears some people can make multiple reservations, while others get none
because of the restrictions imposed. There should be a way to limit the number of
trips so everyone gets an opportunity or two. You should be able to reserve a
certain number of passes for local and/or older residents. We also found the
reservation system difficult to try to use.
11/23/2021 8:07 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
Scott
Erwin Against
I personally think that the timed entry system for the national park is a bunch of crap
especially for the annual pass holders and for Colorado locals as we are a spur of the
moment. I actually did not renew my pass this last year because of it, in 2020 we
could not get in as much as we usually do because all the tourists took up all the
time slots leaving us locals out of our own public park. Which I still don’t agree with
paying for in the first place, but this is a whole other issue. I believe as a right we
have the right to visit this park when ever we feel like it and not by someone that
isn’t even an elected official we the people pay there wages. Also we shouldn’t have
to go in line and try and get a time slot to see our beautiful parks.
Page 40
11/23/2021 8:35 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
Kendra
Merriott Against
Please consider the comments from people who enter the park to enjoy the sites as
well as those who are commuters and use the park to access Grand Lake from
Northern Colorado. If a person has a legitimate reason to be entering the park to
commute, and can prove they own property they are commuting to, they should not
be required to purchase a timed entry permit.
RMNP.pdf See
attched
11/23/2021 8:41 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
Sabrina
Crone Against
Dear Town of Estes Park Board Trustees:
The 2021 restriction system into RMNP is likened to financially shooting yourself,
and your town, in the foot.
It a great way to kill tourism. I have heard many tourists were not able to enter the
Park once traveling from far locations to see this wonder of creation.
Why would you do this and adversely affect the income of business owners in Estes
Park by allowing tourists' experiences to be soured like this? Tourists will find less
restrictive locations to travel to in the future.
Also, this is federal land for the people. The sign up system makes our enjoyment of
public lands quite restrictive and disallows the freedom to enter the Park whenever
we please.
Our freedoms continue to be stripped on all levels in this nation; this restriction
system is just another set of controls, by unelected officials, to strip us of our free
enjoyment of public land.
I am against this restrictive system and unnecessary control of access to RMNP.
11/23/2021 8:47 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
Patti
Albrandt Against
Trustees,
It's become apparently clear the true meaning of trustee for Estes Park and RMNP
isn't valid. As a trustee, you are required to act on behalf of many without pre-
determined outcomes.
I am strongly against the reservation system for RMNP. This is no longer a Covid
excuse. It's about a select few holding court (and ransom) for thousands of outdoor
lovers to enjoy the area.
I guess it's time for me to take my money to other forested areas and cities in
Colorado. Estes Park too will suffer once tourists can't afford to go to the National
Park, nor pay to park in their town.
Page 41
11/23/2021 9:17 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
Dan
Denning Against
NPS cites the 44% increase in visitor use as justification for reservations. Year-to-
date RMNP visitations (through September) are up 30.1% in the last ten yeas (or
3.1% a year), from 2.92m in September 2011 to 3.80m 2021. This year’s September
figure is the fewest number of visitors to RMNP since 2015. The Park didn’t need
reservations in those years, with greater visitation numbers. It doesn’t need them
now. It’s inaccurate and misleading to say other National Parks have similar
reservation systems. Reservations at Glacier, Acadia, and Haleakala are for specific
roads, parking lots, or locations. Not the entire Park. Only Yosemite had Park-wide
reservations in 2020 and 2021. That was Pandemic related only.
RMNP raised daily entrance fees by 25% in 2018. It wants another 20% raise in 2021.
That’s a 50% increase in fees in four years, more than double the current rate of
inflation. Less access + higher fees = not equitable. NPS needs better management,
not higher fees and reservations.
11/23/2021 11:11 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
Paul
Dianish Against
DOI's NPS has made a lifetime agreement with Golden Pass holders. How is it right
and just for ROMO to unilaterally abrogate these terms of service?
11/23/2021 11:29 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
Michael
Williams Against
For 2021, it seems as though the timeframe (total months) for required reservations
was too excessive; it should be limited to our traditional "busy" season (i.e.,
Memorial Day to Labor Day). The reservation system appeared to work well (9 a.m.-
3 p.m. for most of the park), with the exception of the Bear Lake corridor. For 2022,
it is suggested that the timeframe for the Bear Lake corridor be modified from 5 a.m.
- 6 p.m., to 7 a.m. - 3 p.m., as well as the timeframe (months) change noted earlier.
11/23/2021 11:48 AM 2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview and 2022 Plan.
Paul
Dianish Against
ROMO’s 5:00 A.M. deadline is unduly and unreasonably penalizing and punitive for
climbers entering RMNP for access to some of the Park’s highest peaks.
Page 42
I am a native of Colorado and a property owner in two counties. I own a cabin in Grand Lake that I use
seasonally which I access using Trail Ridge Road as my other address is in Northern Colorado. I have to
buy a seasonal pass for $70 to access a road and only a road because I a commuter. Having the timed
entry system was not a great option for my situation. I should not be denied access when I have
purchased a season pass. The timed entry would either be available to purchase months in advance
when I have no clue on when I will be using the road or available 24 hours before I need to use Trail
Ridge and sell out in 10 seconds. Colorado residents who are season pass holders should be able to
bypass the timed entry. If you want to make visitors from out of state use this system when they are
planning their trip then that is a more reasonable solution. What you have in place is not working and
needs to be adjusted to accommodate Colorado residents or taken away completely and go back to the
regular admission standards pre-COVID.
Kendra Merriott
Page 43
Page 44
Report EVENTS & VISITOR
SERVICES
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Rob Hinkle, Events & visitor Services Director
Date: 11/23/2021
RE: Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc. Financial Report
Objective:
Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc will give an overview of their 2021 financial report.
Present Situation:
Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc. assists the Town in the management of the annual
Rooftop Rodeo and are required to give an annual financial report.
Proposal:
Nothing proposed.
Advantages:
Not applicable
Disadvantages:
Not applicable
Action Recommended:
No Action Recommended.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Not applicable
Level of Public Interest
Low level of Public Interest
Attachments:
1.2021 Rooftop Rodeo Presentation to Town Trustees
2.2021 Rooftop Rodeo Advertising Sponsorship Pricing as of May 4
3.2021 Sponsorship Advertising Opportunities as of July 2 FINAL
4.2021 Proposals
5.EPWH Statement
Page 45
Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc.
Attachment 1
Page 46
11/17/2021
INTRODUCTION
•The Rooftop Rodeo is owned by the Town of Estes Park, while Estes Park Western Heritage represents the volunteers, the
“boots on the ground”.
•Considering what our teams had to fight through and plan for over the past year, this was by far the most gratifying week
of Rooftop that I have been honored to be a part of.
•By every metric, we had one of the best Rooftop weeks ever.
•Because of the successes and hard work of a lot of folks, we had our most profitable year ever.
•We paid off the Chutes Loan that we took out several years ago that drastically improved the Arena!
•The Cowboy Channel carried all six nights of the Rooftop Rodeo live to a national audience (giving our Sponsors and the
Town of Estes Park a bright spotlight) and the reviews have been fantastic!
+=
MEET OUR INCREDIBLE 2021 SPONSORS!
Page 47
11/17/2021
Page 48
11/17/2021
EPWH Contact Information:
Mark Purdy, Board Chairman
(970) 481-9512
Chairman@RooftopRodeo.com
QUESTIONS?
Meet our 2021 Rooftop Rodeo Volunteers!
Page 49
Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc.
Proud Supporters of The Rooftop Rodeo
P. O. Box 1852 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 www.rooftoprodeo.com
Bronze Silver Gold Platinum Diamond
Benefit $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $5,000 $10,000+
Website link X X X X X
93" X 22" Arena Banner (supplied by Sponsor) X X X X X
Social Media X X X X
15 - 20 second Pre-show Video (supplied by Sponsor) X X X X
Hospitality entry * X X X
Nightly Grand Entry Flag Run (flag supplied by Sponsor) X X X
1 Wagon ride in Grand Entry * X X X
Logo on Rooftop Rodeo poster X
Number of GA ticket vouchers included * 5 10 15 25 50
(Additional Box seats are $30/night, GA are $20) .
*TBD based on rodeo week Covid restrictions
2021 Gold Sponsorships and up will each include one of the following, subject to availability:
Rodeo Event Sponsor: weekly (7 available)
Out Gate Sponsor: weekly (1 available)
Bucking Chute Gate Sponsor: weekly (8 available)
Timed Events Gate Sponsor: weekly (1 available)
Chutes Bumper Pad Advertising: weekly (1 available)
Single Night Rodeo Sponsor: nightly (6 available)
Spurs Sponsor: inc. spurs identical to 2021 Rooftop Event Champions (1 available)
Behind the Chutes Tour: weekly (1 available)
Miss Rodeo America Sponsor: weekly (1 available)
Announcer Sponsor: weekly (1 available)
Clown and Pickup Men Sponsor: weekly (1 available)
*Subject to availability, fulfilled on a first come first served basis
Attachment 2
Page 50
Opportunity Name Amount Cash Amount In-kind Amount Stage Type Event Sponsored
Bank of Colorado 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid Cash Barrel Racing
Bank of Estes Park 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid Cash Bull Riding
Berthoud Land, Ltd. 2021 6000 6000 0 Closed - Paid Cash Rooftop Rodeo
Cervi 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Comped In-kind Rooftop Rodeo
Cheley 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid Cash Bareback Riding
Chelitos Mexican Restaurant 2021 3000 3000 0 Closed - Needs Paid Cash Bucking Chute Sponsor
Cinch 2021 10000 6000 4000 Closed - Paid Cash and In-kind Scoreboard; Committee Clothing Discounts
Community Hearing Center 2021 1000 1000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Rooftop Rodeo
Cowboy Channel 2021 6000 6000 6000 Closed - Paid Cash Broadcasting Rights
Dodge RAM 2021 2550 2550 Closed - Paid In-kind Pickup Men; National Sponsor
Dr. Mike Suit 2021 1000 1000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Veterinary
Edward Jones / Mark Purdy 2021 3000 2100 900 Closed - Paid Cash and In-kind Spurs Sponsor; Bucking Chute Sponsor
EP Candy Store 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid Single Night of Rodeo - Monday
EPWH Inc. 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Rooftop Rodeo
Estes Park Health 2021 8000 0 8000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind
Single Night of Rodeo - Saturday; Ambulance
Services; Orthopedic Services
Estes Park News 2021 3000 1000 2000 Closed - Paid Cash and In-kind Advertising
Fence Post 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Advertising
Gold Buckle Beer 2021 10000 4500 5500 Closed - Paid Cash and In-kind The Saloon on the Rooftop
Greeley Hat Works 2021 3000 1000 2000 Closed - Needs Paid Cash and In-kind
Royalty; Bucking Chute Sponsor; Miss Rodeo
America; Committee Hat Discounts
Jack Daniels 2021 2000 2000 Closed - Paid Cash
Bucking Chute Sponsor; The Saloon on the
Rooftop
Kinley Built 2021 2000 2000 Closed - Comped Comped Rooftop Rodeo
La Mexicana Grocery 2021 2000 0 2000 Closed - Comped Comped Rooftop Rodeo
Lumpy Ridge Brewery 2021 1000 1000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind The Saloon on the Rooftop
Martin Marietta 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid Cash Tie Down Roping
Nick Molle Productions / Channel 8 2021 2000 2000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Advertising
Park Supply 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid Cash Bucking Chute Sponsor
Park Village Construction 3000 3000 0 Closed - Paid In-kind Steer Wrestling
PRCA 2021 Closed - Comped Comped National Sponsor
Prestige Dodge 2021 3000 0 3000 Closed - Comped In-kind Rooftop Rodeo
Attachment 3
Page 51
Priefert 2021 1500 0 1500 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind National Sponsor
Quality Inn 2021 3000 1000 2000 Closed - Paid Cash Lodging; The Saloon on the Rooftop
Rambo Liquor 2021 3000 1500 1500 Closed - Paid Cash and In-kind Rooftop Rodeo; The Saloon on the Rooftop
Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory 2021 2000 2000 Closed - Paid In-kind Cash and In-kind Mutton Bustin'; Bucking Chute Sponsor
Rocky Mountain Resorts 2021 7000 7000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Lodging; Announcer; Clown
Rodeo Guess 2021 3000 3000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Social Media
SK Horses 2021 4500 4500 Closed - Paid Cash Saddle Bronc Riding; Bucking Chute Sponsor
The Landing at Estes Park 2021 2000 1500 500 Closed - Paid GE Wagon
Town of Estes Park 2021 10000 0 10000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Rooftop Rodeo
Visit Estes Park 2021 10000 5000 5000 Closed - Paid Cash and In-kind Team Roping; Social Media; VIP Stage
WPRA 2021 Closed - Comped Comped National Sponsor
z Big Horn 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality - Wednesday Night Dinner
z Bird & Jim 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Paid In-kind Hospitality - Monday Night Dinner
z Cousin Pat's 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality - Saturday Night Dinner
z El Mex Kal 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality - Tuesday Night Dinner
z Ice of Estes 2021 1000 1000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality Sponsor
z Meadow Gold Dairies 2021 2000 2000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality Sponsor
z Smokin Dave's BBQ 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality - Thursday Night Dinner
z The Egg 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality - Slack Breakfast
z West Texas BBQ 2021 Closed - Paid In-kind Hospitality - Friday Night Dinner
z YMCA 2021 5000 5000 Closed - Paid In-kind In-kind Hospitality Sponsor
184550 68650 121900
Page 52
Contracting Parties
Term
Overview
2021 PRCA Rodeo
Elements
2021 Cinch Sponsorship
Deliverables
Mark Purdy
Rooftop Rodeo
145 Cherokee Ct.
Estes Park, CO 8051 7 (970)48 I -9512
• •
• •
•
•
• • • • • •
CINCH. JEANS & SHIRTS
CINCHJEANS.COM
TERM SHEET
PRCA Cinch Series
Rooftop Rodeo
PRCA Properties, CINCH Jeans and Shirts a division of Miller International, Inc .
July 5-10, 2021
The Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association's and CINCH Jeans and shirt sponsorship was
created in 2018 to support local PRCA rodeos and the PRCA circuit system.
Sponsorship/investment opportunities are available on a rodeo performance basis.
$1,000 to your committee Per Performance. Paid to your Rodeo from PRCA, Properties .
Estes Park, CO - 6 rodeo performances. July 5-10, 2021
Four (4) PA Announcements during each performance (content provided by CINCH)
Two (2) banners displayed in the arena (CINCH will provide the banners)
One (l) :30 commercial spot on thejumbotron if available (ads provided by CINCH)
One (1) CINCH branded flag and flag script ( content provided by CINCH)
Four (4) premier seats at each performance
No competitive jeans or shirts within the series
PRCA Properties
Ivy Weirather
Sponsorship Fulfil�nent Manager
101 Pro Rodeo Dr.
Colorado Springs, CO 80919 (719)528-4719
CINCH Jeans and Shirts
Jessica Wahlert
Marketing Manger
8500 Zuni St
Denver, CO 80260 (970)324-0980
Attachment 4
Page 53
Contracting Parties
Term
Overview
2021 PRCA Rodeo
Elements
2021 Gold Buckle Beer
Sponsorship
Deliverables
Mark Purdy
Board Chainnan
1125 Rooftop Way
Estes Park, CO 805 J 7
(970)481-9512
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TERM SHEET
PRCA Gold Buckle Series
Rooftop Rodeo -Estes Park, CO •PRCA Properties, Gold Buckle Brand, a division of Miller International, Inc .
•One (1) year•Julv 5-10, 2021
•The Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association's and Gold Buckle Beer sponsorship was
created in 2019 to support local PRCA rodeos.•Sponsorship/investment opportunities are available on a rodeo performance basis .
•$750 to your committee Per Performance. Paid to your Rodeo from PRCA, Properties on
behalf of Gold Buckle Beer.
•Estes Park, CO -6 rodeo performances. Jul y 5-10, 2021
Four (4) PA Announcements during each performance (content provided by Gold Buckle
Beer)
Two (2) banners displayed in the arena (Gold Buckle Beer will provide the banners)
Three (3) barrel covers displayed in the arena during the Women's Barrel Racing (Gold
Buckle Beer will provide the covers)
Barrelman branding if available (Gold Buckle Beer will provide branding materials)
One (1) :30 commercial spot on the video board if available (ads provided by Gold
Buckle Beer)
Four (4) premier seats at each performance
No signage for competitive beer/malt beverage companies within the arena
PRCA Properties
Tvy Weirather
Sponsorship Fulfillment Manager
IO I Pro Rodeo Dr. Colorado Springs, CO 80919
(719)528-4719
Gold Buckle Beer
Jessica Wahlert
Marketing Manger
8500 Zuni St
Denver, CO 80260
(970)324-0980
Page 54
Name :______________________
Title: ________________________
Signature:____________________
Date:________________________
+1 (970) 586-8185Phone
Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms
P.O. Box 2560
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Billing Address
Bank of ColoradoAccount Name
Barrel RacingEvent Sponsored
CashType
chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail
(970) 481-9512Phone
Mark PurdyPrepared By
Bank of Colorado 2021Quote Name
00000106Quote Number
5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Company Address
Product Line Item Description Sales Price Quantity Total Price
Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00
Rodeo Event Sponsor Barrel Racing $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00
20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00
Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00
GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Quote Acceptance Information
Page 55
Name :______________________
Title: ________________________
Signature:____________________
Date:________________________
+1 (970) 586-4485Phone
Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms
P.O. Box 2390
Park Lane at MacGregor
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Billing Address
Bank of Estes ParkAccount Name
Bull RidingEvent Sponsored
CashType
chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail
(970) 481-9512Phone
Mark PurdyPrepared By
Bank of Estes Park 2021Quote Name
00000105Quote Number
5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Company Address
Product Line Item Description Sales Price Quantity Total Price
Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00
Rodeo Event Sponsor Bull Riding $0.00 1.00 $0.00
20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00
Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00
GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Quote Acceptance Information
Page 56
Name :______________________
Title: ________________________
Signature:____________________
Date:________________________
Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms
PO Box 1170
3960 Fish Creek Rd.
Estes Park, CO 80517
Billing Address
Cheley Colorado CampsAccount Name
Bareback RidingEvent Sponsored
CashType
chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail
(970) 481-9512Phone
Mark PurdyPrepared By
Cheley 2021Quote Name
00000116Quote Number
5/10/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Company Address
Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price
Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00
Rodeo Event Sponsor $0.00 1.00 $0.00
20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00
Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00
GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Quote Acceptance Information
Page 57
Name :______________________
Title: ________________________
Signature:____________________
Date:________________________
(970) 586-0886Phone
Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms
Chelitos Mexican RestaurantAccount Name
Bucking Chute SponsorEvent Sponsored
CashType
chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail
(970) 481-9512Phone
Mark PurdyPrepared By
Chelitos Mexican Restaurant 2021Quote Name
00000103Quote Number
5/6/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Company Address
Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price
Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00
Bucking Chute Sponsor $0.00 1.00 $0.00
20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00
20 Second In-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00
Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00
GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Quote Acceptance Information
Page 58
Name :______________________
Title: ________________________
Signature:____________________
Date:________________________
+1 (970) 586-2317Phone
Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms
P. O. Box 2740
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Billing Address
Estes Park HealthAccount Name
Steer Wrestling; Single Night of Rodeo -
Saturday; Ambulance Services; Orthopedic
Services
Event Sponsored
In-kindType
chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail
(970) 481-9512Phone
Mark PurdyPrepared By
Estes Park Health 2021Quote Name
00000108Quote Number
5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Company Address
Product Line Item Description Sales Price Quantity Total Price
Diamond Sponsorship Package $10,000.00 1.00 $0.00
Rodeo Event Sponsor Steer Wrestling $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Single Night Rodeo Sponsor Saturday $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Logo on RTR Poster $0.00 1.00 $0.00
20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00
Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00
GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Quote Acceptance Information
Page 59
Name :______________________
Title: ________________________
Signature:____________________
Date:________________________
+1 (970) 586-5800Phone
Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms
Estes Park NewsAccount Name
Rooftop RodeoEvent Sponsored
Cash and In-kindType
chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail
(970) 481-9512Phone
Mark PurdyPrepared By
Estes Park News 2021Quote Name
00000109Quote Number
5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Company Address
Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price
Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $1,000.20
Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00
20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00
GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Quote Acceptance Information
Page 60
Name :______________________
Title: ________________________
Signature:____________________
Date:________________________
(970) 353-7300Phone
Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms
2613 8th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
United States
Billing Address
Greeley Hat WorksAccount Name
GHW MRA billable expenses not to exceed
$1,000. RTR Committee will receive up to
$2,000 in total GHW discounts.
Special Instructions
Royalty; Bucking Chute Sponsor; Miss Rodeo
America; Committee Hat Discounts
Event Sponsored
Cash and In-kindType
chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail
(970) 481-9512Phone
Mark PurdyPrepared By
Greeley Hat Works 2021Quote Name
00000110Quote Number
5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Company Address
Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price
Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $1,000.20
Bucking Chute Sponsor $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00
Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00
20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00
GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Quote Acceptance Information
Page 61
Name :______________________
Title: ________________________
Signature:____________________
Date:________________________
Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms
600 S. St. Vrain Ave Suite #4
Estes Park, CO 80517
Billing Address
Kinley BuiltAccount Name
Rooftop RodeoEvent Sponsored
CompedType
chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail
(970) 481-9512Phone
Mark PurdyPrepared By
Kinley Built 2021Quote Name
00000112Quote Number
5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Company Address
Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price
Silver Sponsorship Package $2,000.00 1.00 $0.00
Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00
20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00
GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Quote Acceptance Information
Page 62
Name :______________________
Title: ________________________
Signature:____________________
Date:________________________
Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms
381 S St Vrain Ave
Estes Park, CO 80517
Billing Address
La Mexicana GroceryAccount Name
Rooftop RodeoEvent Sponsored
CompedType
chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail
(970) 481-9512Phone
Mark PurdyPrepared By
La Mexicana Grocery 2021Quote Name
00000104Quote Number
5/6/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Company Address
Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price
Silver Sponsorship Package $2,000.00 1.00 $0.00
Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00
20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00
GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Quote Acceptance Information
Page 63
Name :______________________
Title: ________________________
Signature:____________________
Date:________________________
(970) 407-3635Phone
Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms
1800 North Taft Hill Road
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Billing Address
Martin MariettaAccount Name
Tie Down RopingEvent Sponsored
CashType
chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail
(970) 481-9512Phone
Mark PurdyPrepared By
Martin Marietta 2021Quote Name
00000113Quote Number
5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Company Address
Product Line Item Description Sales Price Quantity Total Price
Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00
Rodeo Event Sponsor Tie Down $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00
20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00
Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00
GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Quote Acceptance Information
Page 64
Name :______________________
Title: ________________________
Signature:____________________
Date:________________________
(970) 586-6305Phone
Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms
411 CO-7
Estes Park, CO 80517
Billing Address
Park SupplyAccount Name
Bucking Chute SponsorEvent Sponsored
CashType
chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail
(970) 481-9512Phone
Mark PurdyPrepared By
Park Supply 2021Quote Name
00000111Quote Number
5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Company Address
Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price
Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $3,000.00
Bucking Chute Sponsor $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00
Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00
20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00
GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Quote Acceptance Information
Page 65
Name :______________________
Title: ________________________
Signature:____________________
Date:________________________
+1 (970) 586-8583Phone
Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms
Rambo LiquorAccount Name
Rooftop Rodeo; The Saloon on the RooftopEvent Sponsored
Cash and In-kindType
chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail
(970) 481-9512Phone
Mark PurdyPrepared By
Rambo Liquor 2021Quote Name
00000114Quote Number
5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Company Address
Product Sales Price Quantity Total Price
Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 1.00 $1,500.00
Arena Sign $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00
20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00
GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Quote Acceptance Information
Page 66
Name :______________________
Title: ________________________
Signature:____________________
Date:________________________
+1 970-586-5890Phone
Please pay by June 4, 2021 if possibleTerms
P.O. Box 2214
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Billing Address
SK HorsesAccount Name
Saddle Bronc Riding; Bucking Chute SponsorEvent Sponsored
CashType
chairman@rooftoprodeo.comEmail
(970) 481-9512Phone
Mark PurdyPrepared By
SK Horses 2021Quote Name
00000107Quote Number
5/8/2021Created DateP.O. Box 1852
Estes Park, CO 80517
United States
Company Address
Product Line Item Description Sales Price Quantity Total Price
Gold Sponsorship Package $3,000.00 2.00 $4,500.00
Rodeo Event Sponsor Saddle Bronc Riding $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Bucking Chute Sponsor $0.00 1.00 $0.00
20 Second Pre-show Video $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Grand Entry flag run (nightly)$0.00 1.00 $0.00
Social Media and RTR website link $0.00 1.00 $0.00
GA Tickets per week - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Hospitality Nights - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Wagon Ride in Grand Entry - TBD $0.00 1.00 $0.00
Quote Acceptance Information
Page 67
November 15th, 2021
� ?lctt {g)/1 .4,,r!(!.
PO Box 1793
Estes Park, CO 80517
(970)586-9516 Fax (888)456-2106
chris@christianhillcpa.com
RE: Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc.
Dear Staff or to whom it may concern:
My firm is engaged by Mark Purdy and Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc. to provide bookkeeping
services including accounts payable and accounts receivable functions. These services are delivered
using information provided by management.
To the best of my knowledge this information is complete and financial records are accurate as of the
statement date. All bookkeeping services provided to Estes Park Western Heritage, Inc. conform to
generally ac cepted accounting standards.
Very truly,
Christian A. Hill
Christian Hill CPA, LLC
Attachment 5
Page 68
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator
Date: November 23, 2021
RE: Resolution 83-21 to Approve the Colorado Opioids Settlement
Memorandum of Understanding
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Approve the “Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding” and
associated documents between the Town of Estes Park and the State of Colorado.
Present Situation:
Nationwide settlements have been reached with the “Big 3” opioid distributors
(McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen) and opioid manufacturer
Johnson & Johnson to resolve claims by state and local governments that these
companies contributed to the opioid epidemic. The claims being settled include those
raised by local governments in a nationwide class action suit. (More information about
these settlements can be found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/.)
In October 2021, staff was informed that the Colorado Department of Law came to an
agreement with Colorado’s local governments for distributing opioid settlement and
recovery funds to local counties and municipalities. The attached Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) is the product of a lengthy and complex negotiation between the
Attorney General’s Office, Colorado Counties, Inc., Colorado Municipal League, and
many negotiating local governments detailing that distribution process.
To maximize the settlement funds within Colorado, which will be used to help address
and abate the opioid crisis, it is important that all Colorado counties and municipalities
participate in these settlements and the distribution process by signing the following four
documents, attached to this memorandum:
Page 69
1. The MOU that lays out the allocation of opioid recoveries in the State of
Colorado;
2. The Subdivision Settlement Participation Form that releases subdivisions’ legal
claims against Johnson & Johnson;
3. The Subdivision Settlement Participation Form that releases subdivisions’ legal
claims against AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson; and
4. The Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement that ensures subdivisions’ legal
claims are released only when 95% participation by certain local governments
has been reached. That 95% participation threshold is important because it
triggers certain amounts of incentive payments under the settlements and signals
to the settling pharmaceutical companies that the settlements have wide
acceptance.
By signing onto the agreement, the Town has an opportunity to participate on our
“Regional Council” and determine how funds allocated to the Region (Larimer County)
are spent. Alternatively, the Town can sign on and elect to redirect our allocation to the
Region and those participating in the Regional Council can make spending decisions on
behalf of the Region. If the Board approves the MOU, staff intends to notify the
Statewide Abatement Council that we desire to redirect the Town’s share to the Region
which we believe is better suited to determine how funds will best be spent to address
and abate the opioid crisis.
Proposal:
Staff proposes that the Board approve the Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum
of Understanding and associated documents.
Advantages:
• Signing onto the MOU will help maximize the settlement funds distributed to the
State and ultimately our region.
Disadvantages:
• None. Colorado will receive its maximum share of settlement payments only if
enough local governments sign onto the MOU. Also, the settling defendants have
the option to “walk away” from the deal if there is not enough participation. As
such, it is important that a “critical mass” of local governments sign on.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding and
associated documents.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Page 70
The Memorandum of Understanding outlines how settlement proceeds would be
distributed to the State, regions, and local governments. Based on the allocation
breakdown, we believe the amount the Town would be eligible for is approximately
$18,000. However, the Town would have to use the funds for purposes approved in
Exhibit A of the MOU. Because we do not have existing programs focused on opioids
treatment and prevention, we would elect to redirect the Town proportion of funds to our
Regional Council.
Level of Public Interest
Medium
Sample Motions:
•I move to approve Resolution 83-21.
Attachments:
1.Resolution 83-21
2.Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding
3.Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding: Summary
4.Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding: Frequently Asked
Questions
5.Settlement Participation Form: Johnson & Johnson
6.Subdivision Settlement Participation Form
7.Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement
Page 71
RESOLUTION 83-21
APPROVING THE COLORADO OPIOIDS SETTLEMENT MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING
WHEREAS, the opioid use leading to overdoses and deaths has been declared a
nationwide public health emergency; and
WHEREAS, nationwide settlements have been reached with the “Big 3” opioid
distributors (McKesson, Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen) and opioid
manufacturer Johnson & Johnson to resolve claims by state and local governments that
these companies contributed to the opioid epidemic; and
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado and participating local governments intend to
execute the Colorado Opioids Summary Memorandum of Understanding, establishing the
manner in which Opioid Funds shall be divided and distributed within the State of
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park desires to sign onto the Memorandum of
Understanding in part to help the State maximize its share of settlement payments to help
address and abate issues associated with the opioid crisis; and
WHEREAS, settlement funds will be allocated to single- or multi-county regions
made up of local governments; and
WHEREAS, Larimer County has been identified as a single-county Region for the
purposes of settlement allocations; and
WHEREAS, as a signatory the Town intends to redirect its direct allocation to the
Region, which is better suited to determine how funds could best be spent to address and
abate the opioid crisis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the memorandum of
understanding referenced in the title of this resolution, as well as the associated
settlement participation forms and escrow agreement, in substantially the form now
before the Board.
DATED this ______ day of _________________, 2021.
Attachment 1
Page 72
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Page 73
COLORADO OPIOIDS SETTLEMENT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
("MOU")
Thursday, August 26, 2021
August 25, 2021 Attorney General version
A.Definitions
As used in this MOU:
1."Approved Purpose(s)" shall mean forward-looking strategies, programming, and
services to abate the opioid epidemic as identified by the terms of any Settlement.
If a Settlement is silent on Approved Purpose(s), then Approved Purpose(s) shall
mean those forward-looking strategies to abate the opioid epidemic identified in
Exhibit A or any supplemental forward-looking abatement strategies added to
Exhibit A by the Abatement Council. Consistent with the terms of any
Settlement, "Approved Purposes" shall also include the reasonable administrative
costs associated with overseeing and administering Opioid Funds from each of the
four (4) Shares described in Section (B)(2). Reimbursement by the State or Local
Governments for past expenses are not Approved Purpose(s). "Approved
Purposes" shall include attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in the course of the
opioid litigation that are paid through the process discussed below.
2. "County Area" shall mean a county in the State of Colorado plus the Local
Governments, or portion of any Local Government, within that county.
3."Effective Date" shall mean the date on which a court of competent jurisdiction,
including any bankruptcy court, enters the first Settlement by order or consent
decree. The Parties anticipate that more than one Settlement will be administered
according to the terms of this MOU, but that the first entered Settlement will
trigger the formation of the Abatement Council in Section (C) and the Regional
Councils in Section (F)(5).1
4."General Abatement Fund Council," or "Abatement Council," shall have the
meaning described in Section (C), below.
1 For the avoidance of doubt, the McKinsey Settlement and any other Settlement that precedes the finalization of
drafting this MOU are not considered a trigger for purposes of the calculation of"Effective Date."
1
Attachment 2
Page 74
5."Local Government(s)" shall mean all counties in the State of Colorado and the
municipalities, towns, and county and city municipal corporations that are listed
in Exhibit B.
6."National Opioid Settlement Administrative Fund" shall mean any fund identified
by a Settlement for the national distribution of Opioid Funds.
7."Opioid Funds" shall mean damage awards obtained through a Settlement.
8."Opioid Settling Defendant" shall mean any person or entity, or its affiliates, that
engages in or has engaged in the manufacture, marketing, promotion, distribution,
or dispensing of licit opioids.
9."Participating Local Government(s)" shall mean all Local Governments that sign
this MOU, and if required under terms of a particular Settlement, who have
executed a release of claims with the Opioid Settlement Defendant(s). For the
avoidance of doubt, a Local Government must sign this MOU to become a
"Participating Local Government." Local Governments may designate the
appropriate individual from their entity to sign the MOU.
10."Party" or "Parties" shall mean the State and/or Participating Local
Government(s).
11."Qualified Settlement Fund Account," or "QSF Account," shall mean an account
set up as a qualified settlement fund, 468b fund, as authorized by Treasury
Regulations l .468B-l ( c) (26 CFR § l.468B-1 ).
12."Regional Council" shall have the meaning described in Section (F)(5), below.
13."Settlement" shall mean the negotiated resolution of legal or equitable claims
against an Opioid Settling Defendant when that resolution has been jointly
entered into by the State and the Participating Local Governments, or by any
individual Party or collection of Parties that opt to subject their Settlement to this
MOU. Unless otherwise directed by an order from a United States Bankruptcy
Court, "Settlement" shall also include distributions from any liquidation under
Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code or confirmed plan under Chapter
11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code that treats the claims of the State and
Local Governments against an Opioid Settling Defendant.
14."The State" shall mean the State of Colorado acting through its Attorney General
and the Colorado Department of Law.
B.Allocation of Settlement Proceeds
1.All Opioid Funds shall be held in accordance with the terms of any Settlement. If
a Settlement allows Opioid Funds to be held in a National Opioid Settlement
Administrative Fund, then Opioid Funds shall be held in such National Opioid
Settlement Administrative Fund. If a Settlement does not allow for Opioid Funds
2
Page 75
to be held in a National Opioid Settlement Administrative Fund, Opioid Funds
shall be held in a Colorado-specific QSF Account or, under the following limited
circumstances, in the State's Custodial Account: 1) if at the time of a Settlement,
a Colorado-specific QSF Account is not yet established, although in such case, the
Opioid Funds shall be transferred to the Colorado-specific QSF Account once it is
established or 2) where the Abatement Fund Council determines Opioids Funds
cannot be legally held in a Colorado-specific QSF Account. Regardless of
whether Opioid Funds are held in a National Administrative Fund, a Colorado
specific QSF Account, or in the State's Custodial Account, the Abatement
Council shall appoint one of its members to serve as the point of contact in
accordance Section (C)(4)(b)(i), below.
2.All Opioid Funds, at the time of a Settlement or at the time designated in the
Settlement documents, shall be divided and distributed as follows:2
a.10% directly to the State ("State Share") for Approved Purposes in
accordance with Section (D), below;
b.20% directly to Participating Local Governments ("LG Share") for
Approved Purposes in accordance with Section (E), below;
c.60% directly to Regions ("Regional Share") for Approved Purposes in
accordance with Section (F), below; and
d.10% to specific abatement infrastructure projects ("Statewide
Infrastructure Share") for Approved Purposes in accordance with Section
(G), below.
3.Distribution of the Shares in Section B(2)( a) -( d) shall be direct, meaning that
funds held in accordance with Section B(1) shall be disbursed directly to the
State, Participating Local Governments, Regions, and the Statewide Infrastructure
Share according to the terms of this MOU.
4.All Opioid Funds, regardless of allocation, shall be used for Approved Purposes.
5.Participating Local Governments may elect to share, pool, or collaborate with
their respective allocation of the LG or Regional Shares in any manner they
choose, so long as such sharing, pooling, or collaboration is used for Approved
Purposes and complies with the terms of this MOU and any Settlement.
C.General Abatement Fund Council
1.A General Abatement Fund Council (the "Abatement Council"), consisting of
representatives appointed by the State and Participating Local Governments, shall
2 This MOU treats multi-county health departments as county health departments for purposes of allocation and
distribution of abatement proceeds and therefore multi-county health departments shall not receive any Opioid
Funds directly. Third-Party Payors ("TPPs") are not Parties to this MOU.
3
Page 76
be created to ensure the distribution of Opioid Funds complies with the terms of
any Settlement and to provide oversight of the Opioid Funds in accordance with
the terms of this MOU.
2.Membership: The Abatement Council shall consist of the following thirteen (13)
members, who shall serve in their official capacity only.
a.State Members: Seven (7) members shall be appointed by the State, as
authorized volunteers of the State, as follows:
(i)A Chair to serve as a non-voting member, except in the event of a
tie;
(ii)Two (2) members who are licensed professionals with significant
experience in substance use disorders;
(iii)Three (3) members who are professionals with significant
experience in prevention, education, recovery, treatment, criminal
justice, rural public health issues, or government administration
related to substance use disorders; and
(iv)One ( 1) member or family member affected directly by the opioid
cns1s.
b.Local Government Members: Six (6) members shall be appointed by the
Participating Local Governments. Local Government Members shall be a
County Commissioner, Mayor, City or Town Council Member, or a
professional with significant experience in prevention, education,
recovery, treatment, criminal justice, rural public health issues, or
governmental administration related to substance use disorders. A
Participating Local Government may determine which Local Government
Members are eligible ( or ineligible) to serve on the General Abatement
Fund Council. County Commissioners, City or Town Council Members,
and/or Mayors from the Regions identified in Exhibit C shall collaborate
to appoint Local Government Members as follows:
(i)Two (2) Members from Regions 1, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18;
(ii)Two (2) Members from Regions 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16; and
(iii)Two (2) Members from Regions 3, 4, 19.
c.Terms: The Abatement Council shall be established within ninety (90)
days of the Effective Date. In order to do so, within sixty (60) days of the
Effective Date, the State shall appoint the State Members in accordance
with Section (C)(2)(a), and after conferral with the Local Governments,
CCI and CML shall jointly appoint six (6) Local Government Members
for an initial term not to exceed one year. Thereafter, Members shall be
4
Page 77
appointed in accordance with this Section and Sections (C)(2)(a) and (b)
and may serve no more than two (2) consecutive two-year terms, for a
total of four (4) consecutive years. Except that, beginning in the second
year only, two (2) State Members and two (2) Local Government members
shall be appointed for a three-year term and may serve one consecutive
two-year term thereafter. The Chair shall have no term but may be
replaced at the State's discretion.
(i)If a State or Local Government Member resigns or is otherwise
removed from the Abatement Council prior to the expiration of
their tenn, a replacement Member shall be appointed within sixty
(60)days in accordance with Sections (C)(2)(a) and (b).
(ii)If a Local Government Member vacancy exists for more than sixty
(60)days, the State shall appoint a replacement Local Government
Member to serve until the vacancy is filled in accordance with
Section (C)(2)(b ).
3.Duties: The Abatement Council is primarily responsible for ensuring that the
distribution of Opioid Funds complies with the terms of this MOU. The
Abatement Council is also responsible for oversight of Opioid Funds from the
Regional Share in accordance with Section (F), below, and for developing
processes and procedures for the distribution and oversight of Opioid Funds from
the Statewide Infrastructure Share in accordance with Section (G) below.
4.Governance: The Abatement Council shall draft its own bylaws or other
governing documents, which must include appropriate conflict of interest and
dispute resolution provisions, in accordance with the terms of this MOU and the
following principles:
a.Authority: The Abatement Council does not have rulemaking authority.
The terms of this MOU and any Settlement, as entered by any court of
competent jurisdiction, including any bankruptcy court, control the
authority of the Abatement Council and the Abatement Council shall not
stray outside the bounds of the authority and power vested by this MOU
and any Settlement.
b.Administration: The Abatement Council shall be responsible for an
accounting of all Opioid Funds. The Abatement Council shall be
responsible for releasing Opioid Funds in accordance with Section (B)(l)
for the Regional and Statewide Infrastructure Shares in Sections (B)(2)( c)
and (d) and shall develop policies and procedures for the release and
oversight of such funds in accordance with Sections (F) and (G). Should
the Abatement Council require assistance with providing an accounting of
Opioid Funds, it may seek assistance from the State.
5
Page 78
(i)The Abatement Council shall appoint one of its members to serve
as a point of contact for the purpose of communicating with the
entity holding Opioid Funds in accordance with Section (B)(l) and
in that role shall only act as directed by the Abatement Council.
c.Transparency: The Abatement Council shall operate with all reasonable
transparency and operate in a manner consistent with all Colorado laws
relating to open records and meetings regardless of whether the Abatement
Council is otherwise obligated to comply with them.
(i)The Abatement Council shall develop a centralized public
dashboard or other repository for the publication of expenditure
data from any Party or Regional Council that receives Opioid
Funds in accordance with Sections (O)-(G).
(ii)The Abatement Council may also require outcome related data
from any Party or Regional Council that receives Opioid Funds in
accordance with Sections (O)-(G) and may publish such outcome
related data in the centralized public dashboard or other repository
described above. In determining which outcome related data may
be required, the Abatement Council shall work with all Parties and
Regional Councils to identify appropriate data sets and develop
reasonable procedures for collecting such data sets so that the
administrative burden does not outweigh the benefit of producing
such outcome related data.
(iii)For purposes of funding the centralized public dashboard or other
repository described above, the Abatement Council shall make
good faith efforts to seek funding from outside sources first,
otherwise the State shall provide such funding.
d.Collaboration: The Abatement Council shall facilitate collaboration
between the State, Participating Local Governments, Regional Councils,
and other stakeholders for the purposes of sharing data, outcomes,
strategies, and other relevant information related to abating the opioid
crisis in Colorado.
e.Decision Making: The Abatement Council shall seek to make all
decisions by consensus. In the event consensus cannot be achieved, unless
otherwise required in this MOU, the Abatement Council shall make
decisions by a majority vote of its Members. The Chair shall only vote in
the event of a tie.
f.Due Process: The Abatement Council shall develop the due process
procedures required by Section (G)(3)(d) for Parties to dispute or
challenge remedial actions taken by the Abatement Council for Opioid
Funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share. The Abatement Council
6
Page 79
shall also abide by the due process principles required by Section (F)( 12)
( 13)for Regions to dispute or challenge remedial actions taken by the
Abatement Council for Opioid Funds from the Regional Share.
g.Legal Status: The Abatement Council shall not constitute a separate legal
entity.
h.Legal Representation: To the extent permitted by law, the State shall
provide legal counsel to State Members for all legal issues arising from
those State Members' work on the Abatement Council. At all times, Local
Government Members of the Abatement Council are entitled to receive
legal representation from their respective governmental entities. In the
event of a conflict, the Abatement Council and its members may retain the
services of other legal counsel.
1.Compensation: No member of the Abatement Council shall be
compensated for their work related to the Abatement Council.
D.State Share
1.In accordance with Sections (B)(l) and (B)(2)(a), and the terms of any Settlement,
the State Share shall be paid directly to the State in accordance with the terms of
this Section (D).
2.The State maintains full discretion over distribution of the State Share anywhere
within the State of Colorado, however, the State Share shall be used for Approved
Purposes only. The State will work to reduce administrative costs as much as
practicable.
3.On an annual basis, as determined by the Abatement Council, the State shall
provide all expenditure data, including administrative costs, from the State Share
to the Abatement Council for purposes of maintaining transparency in accordance
with Section (C)(4)(c)(i). The Abatement Council may require the State to
provide additional outcome-related data in accordance with Section (C)(4)(c)(ii)
and the State shall comply with such requirements.
4.If the State disputes the amount of Opioid Funds it receives from the State Share,
the State shall alert the Abatement Council within sixty (60) days of discovering
the information underlying the dispute. Failure to alert the Abatement Council
within this time frame shall not constitute a waiver of the State's right to seek
recoupment of any deficiency in its State Share.
E.LG Share
1.In accordance with Sections (B)(l) and (B)(2)(b), and the terms of any
Settlement, the LG Share shall be paid directly to Participating Local
Governments in accordance with the terms of this Section (E).
7
Page 80
2.Allocations to Participating Local Governments from the LG Share shall first be
determined using the percentages shown in Exhibit D.
3.The LG Share for each County Area shall then be allocated among the county and
the other Participating Local Governments within it. Exhibit E reflects the default
allocation that will apply unless the Participating Local Governments within a
County Area enter into a written agreement providing for a different allocation.
The Participating Local Governments may elect to modify the allocation for a
County Area in Exhibit E, but such modification to the allocation in Exhibit E
shall not change a County Area's total allocation under Section (E)(2).
4.A Local Government that chooses not to become a Participating Local
Government will not receive a direct allocation from the LG Share. The portion of
the LG Share that would have been allocated to a Local Government that is not a
Participating Local Government will instead be re-allocated to the Regional Share
for the Region where the Local Government is located, in accordance with
Section (F), below.
5.In the event a Participating Local Government dissolves or ceases to exist during
the term of any Settlement, the allocation for that Participating Local Government
from the LG Share shall be re-allocated as directed by any Settlement, and if not
specified, be re-allocated to the Regional Share for the Region in which the
Participating Local Government was located, in accordance with Section (F). If a
Participating Local Government merges with another Participating Local
Government, the allocation for that Participating Local Government from the LG
Share shall be re-allocated as directed by any Settlement, and if not specified,
shall be re-allocated to the successor Participating Local Government's allocation
of the LG Share. If a Participating Local Government merges with a Local
Government that is not a Participating Local Government, the allocation for that
Participating Local Government from the LG Share shall be re-allocated as
directed by any Settlement, and if not specified, be re-allocated to the Region in
which the merging Participating Local Government was located, in accordance
with Section (F), below.
6.A Participating Local Government may forego its allocation of the LG Share and
direct its allocation to the Regional Share for the Region where the Participating
Local Government is located, in accordance with Section (F) below, by
affirmatively notifying the Abatement Council on an annual basis of its decision
to forego its allocation of the LG Share. A Participating Local Government's
election to forego its allocation of the LG Share shall carry over to the following
year unless the Participating Local Government notifies the Abatement Council
otherwise. If a Participating Local Government elects to forego its allocation of
the LG Share, the Participating Local Government shall be excused from the
reporting requirements required by Section (E)(8).
7.Participating Local Governments maintain full discretion over the distribution of
their allocation of the LG Share anywhere within the State of Colorado, however,
8
Page 81
all Participating Local Governments shall use their allocation from the LG Share
for Approved Purposes only. Reasonable administrative costs for a Participating
Local Government to administer its allocation of the LG Share shall not exceed
actual costs or 10% of the Participating Local Government's allocation of the LG
Share, whichever is less.
8.On an annual basis, as determined by the Abatement Council, all Participating
Local Governments shall provide all expenditure data, including administrative
costs, from their allocation of the LG Share to the Abatement Council for
purposes of maintaining transparency in accordance with Section (C)(4)(c)(i).
The Abatement Council may require Participating Local Governments to provide
additional outcome related data in accordance with Section (C)(4)(c)(ii) and all
Participating Local Governments shall comply with such requirements.
9.If any Participating Local Government disputes the amount of Opioid Funds it
receives from its allocation of the LG Share, the Participating Local Government
shall alert the Abatement Council within sixty (60) days of discovering the
information underlying the dispute. Failure to alert the Abatement Council within
this time frame shall not constitute a waiver of the Participating Local
Government's right to seek recoupment of any deficiency in its LG Share.
F.Regional Share
1.In accordance with Sections (B)(l) and (B)(2)(c), and the terms of any Settlement,
the Regional Share shall be paid to the Regions in accordance with the terms of
this Section (F).
2.Participating Local Governments shall organize themselves into the Regions
depicted in Exhibit C. Municipalities located in multiple Regions may join all or
some of the Regions in which they are located according to Exhibit C.
3.Allocations to Regions will be distributed according to Exhibit F. For multi
county Regions, each Region's share listed in Exhibit Fis calculated by summing
the individual percentage shares listed in Exhibit D for the counties within that
Region. The percentages in Exhibit F are based on the assumption that every
Local Government in each Region becomes a Participating Local Government.
4.In the event a city, town, or other municipality that is a Participating Local
Government merges, dissolves, or ceases to exist during the term of any
Settlement, the allocation of the Regional Share owed to the Region in which that
Participating Local Government existed shall be re-allocated as directed by any
Settlement, and if not specified, shall not be modified from Exhibit F. If a county
that is a Participating Local Government merges with another county within its
Region, the allocation of the Regional Share owed to the Region in which that
county existed shall be re-allocated as directed by any Settlement, and if not
specified, shall not be modified from Exhibit F. If a county that is a Participating
Local Government merges with a county in a different Region during the term of
9
Page 82
any Settlement, the allocation of the Regional Share owed to the Region in which
that county existed shall be re-allocated as directed by any Settlement, and if not
specified, shall be re-allocated to the Region in which that Participating Local
Government merged in accordance with Exhibit F.
5.Each Region must create its own Regional Council while giving consideration to
the regional governance models illustrated in Exhibit G. The Regional Council
must be formed by the Participating Local Governments within the Region and
each Regional Council shall designate a fiscal agent for the Region. Regional
fiscal agents shall be county or municipal governments only. All funds from the
Regional Share shall be distributed to the Regional Council's identified fiscal
agent for the benefit of the entire Region.
a.Subject to this Section F(5), each Region may draft its own intra-regional
agreements, bylaws, or other governing documents to determine how the
Regional Council will operate. However, each voting member of a
Regional Council shall be an employee or elected official of a
Participating Local Government within the applicable Region. In the case
of Denver, the voting members of its Regional Council shall be appointed
by the Mayor. In the case of Broomfield, the voting members of its
Regional Council shall be appointed by the Broomfield City and County
Manager.
b.The Region shall not receive any Opioid Funds from the Regional Share
until the Region certifies to the Abatement Council that its Regional
Council has been formed and a fiscal agent has been designated. Such
certification shall be in a simple form adopted by the Region and may be
made via email, so long as it includes the names and affiliations of the
Regional Council's members and the designated fiscal agent.
c.If a Region does not fonn and certify its Regional Council and designate
its fiscal agent within one-hundred and eighty ( 180) days of the Effective
Date, the Abatement Council shall appoint members to the Region's
Regional Council. Regional Council members appointed by the
Abatement Council shall serve until the Region certifies the formation of
its Regional Council to the Abatement Council.
d.A Region shall submit a renewed certification required by Section
(F)(5)(b), above, when its membership changes.
e.If a membership vacancy exists on a Regional Council for more than
ninety (90) days and the Regional Council is unable to fill the vacancy by
its regular procedures during that time, the Abatement Council shall
appoint a replacement member to serve until the Region fills the vacancy.
10
Page 83
6.A Local Government that chooses not to become a Participating Local
Government shall not receive any Opioid Funds from the Regional Share or
participate in the Regional Councils described in Section (F)(S) above.
7.Each Regional Council shall make requests to the Abatement Council for Opioid
Funds from their allocation of the Regional Share. Each Regional Council's
request for Opioid Funds from the Regional Share shall be accompanied by a 2-
year plan identifying the Approved Purposes for which the requested funds will
be used by the Region anywhere within the State of Colorado. A Regional
Council's 2-year plan may be amended so long as such amendments comply with
the terms of this MOU and any Settlement. Any Regional Council may seek
assistance from the Abatement Council for purposes of developing its 2-year plan.
8.Reasonable administrative costs for a Regional Council to administer its Region's
allocation of the Regional Share shall not exceed actual costs or 10% of the
Region's allocation of the Regional Share, whichever is less.
9.The Abatement Council shall release funds requested by a Regional Council in
accordance with Section (B)(l) if the Regional Council's 2-year plan complies
with the Approved Purposes, the terms of this MOU, and the terms of any
Settlement. The Abatement Council shall not deny any funding request from a
Regional Council on the basis that the Abatement Council does not approve or
agree with the Approved Purposes for which a Regional Council requests Opioid
Funds from the Regional Share. Nor may the Abatement Council hold up, delay,
or make unreasonable requests for additional or supporting information of the
Regional Council prior to releasing the requested Opioid Funds. The purpose of
this MOU is to facilitate Opioid Funds to their intended recipients quickly and
efficiently with minimal administrative procedure.
10.On an annual basis, as determined by the Abatement Council, each Regional
Council's fiscal agent shall provide to the Abatement Council the Regional
Council's expenditure data, including administrative costs, from their allocation
of the Regional Share and certify to the Abatement Council that the Regional
Council's expenditures were for Approved Purposes and complied with its 2-year
plan. The Regional Council shall subject itself to an accounting at the Abatement
Council's discretion.
a.The Abatement Council shall review a Regional Council's expenditure
data and certification to ensure compliance with the Regional Council's 2-
year plan, the Approved Purposes, and the terms of this MOU and any
Settlement.
b.The Abatement Council shall publish the Regional Council's expenditure
data, including administrative costs, from the Regional Share in
accordance with Section (C)(4)(c)(i). The Abatement Council may require
Regional Councils to provide additional outcome related data in
11
Page 84
accordance with Section (C)(4)(c)(ii) and all Regional Councils shall
comply with such requirements.
1 I. If any Regional Council disputes the amount of Opioid Funds it receives from its
allocation of the Regional Share, the Regional Council shall alert the Abatement
Council within sixty (60) days of discovering the information underlying the
dispute. Failure to alert the Abatement Council within this time frame shall not
constitute a waiver of the Regional Council's right to seek recoupment of any
deficiency in its Regional Share.
12.If the Abatement Council has reason to believe a Region's expenditure of its
allocation of the Regional Share did not comply with the Region's 2-year Plan,
the Approved Purposes, the terms of this MOU or any Settlement, as described in
this Section (F), or that the Region otherwise misused its allocation of the
Regional Share, the Abatement Council may take remedial action against the
alleged offending Region. Such remedial action is left to the discretion of the
Abatement Council and may include but not be limited to, withholding future
Opioids Funds owed to the offending Region or requiring the offending Region to
reimburse improperly expended Opioid Funds to the Regional Share.
13.Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the Abatement Council being
formed, in accordance with Section (C)(2)(c) above, the Abatement Council shall
develop and publish due process procedures for allowing a Region to challenge or
dispute any remedial action taken by the Abatement Council, including timelines
during which the Region may engage in such a challenge or dispute. Such due
process procedures shall reflect, at a minimum, the following principles:
a.Upon learning of any conduct that may warrant remedial action against a
Region, the Abatement Council shall first provide notice to the Region of
the conduct at issue, provide the Region an opportunity to respond, and, if
appropriate, cure the alleged offending conduct. If after providing the
Region such notice and opportunities to respond and cure, the Abatement
Council continues to believe remedial action is warranted, the Abatement
Council may take such remedial action.
b.If the Abatement Council decides to take remedial action against an
alleged offending Region, such action may only occur by a two-thirds
supermajority vote of the Abatement Council. Thus, an Abatement
Council made up of twelve (12) voting members requires a vote of eight
(8)Members prior to taking remedial action against an alleged offending
Region.
c.Prior to taking any remedial action against an alleged offending Region,
the Abatement Council shall first provide notice to the alleged offending
Region of the remedial action to be taken and the facts underlying such
remedial action. The Abatement Council shall then provide the alleged
12
Page 85
offending Region an opportunity to challenge or dispute the remedial
action in accordance with, at a minimum, the principles below:
1.The alleged offending Region may request revisions or
modifications to the proposed remedial action;
11.The alleged offending Region may submit a written response to
and/or request a hearing before the Abatement Council, or a third
party hearing officer, 3 regarding the alleged offending conduct and
proposed remedial action; and
111.After such written responses are submitted and reviewed and/or a
hearing is conducted, the alleged offending Region may submit an
appeal to the Abatement Council of the decision to take remedial
action.
d.Remedial actions taken by the Abatement Council, in accordance with the
due process principles detailed above, shall be considered final non
appealable orders and offending Regions may not seek judicial relief from
remedial action taken by the Abatement Council, except as provided in
Section (H), below.
e.Subject to Section (H)(2), below, if any Party(ies) believes the Abatement
Council violated the terms of this MOU, such Party(ies) may seek to
enforce the terms of this MOU.
14.If the Abatement Council has reason to believe a Region's conduct, or the conduct
of any Participating Local Government or individual in that Region, amounts to a
violation of any criminal law, the Abatement Council shall refer such matters to the
appropriate authorities and may consider such conduct in its determination of any
remedial action to be taken.
15.If the Abatement Council has reason to believe that an individual involved in the
receipt or administration of Opioid Funds from the Regional Share has violated any
applicable ethics rules or codes, the Abatement Council shall not attempt to adjudicate
such a violation. In such instances, the Abatement Council shall lodge a complaint with
the appropriate forum for handling such ethical matters, such as a local home rule
municipality's ethics board.
16.Costs associated with the Abatement Council's distribution and oversight of the
Regional Share, as described above in this Section (F), including costs associated with
any remedial action by the Abatement Council, shall be paid from the Statewide
3 Only an alleged offending Region may request the appointment of a third-party hearing officer to review any
written responses and conduct any requested hearings. If an alleged offending Region makes such a request, the
Abatement Council has sole discretion to appoint the third-party hearing officer and the alleged offending Region
shall bear the cost of such review and/or hearing by the third-party hearing officer.
13
Page 86
Infrastructure Share. The Abatement Council shall make all good faith efforts to limit
such costs to the greatest extent possible.
G.Statewide Infrastructure Share
1.In accordance with Sections B(l) and (B)(2)(d), and the terms of any Settlement,
the Statewide Infrastructure Share shall be paid to any Party or Regional Council
in accordance with this Section (G).
2.The purpose of the Statewide Infrastructure Share is to promote capital
improvements and provide operational assistance for developing or improving the
infrastructure necessary to abate the opioid crisis anywhere within the State of
Colorado. The Statewide Infrastructure Share is intended to supplement Opioid
Funds received by any Party or Region.
3.Prior to distributing any Opioid Funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share,
the Abatement Council shall establish and publish policies and procedures for the
distribution and oversight of the Statewide Infrastructure Share, including
processes for Parties or Regions to apply for Opioid Funds from the Statewide
Infrastructure Share. The Abatement Council's policies and procedures shall, at a
minimum, reflect the following principles:
a.Opioid Funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share shall be used for
Approved Purposes only;
b.Opioid Funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share shall be paid
directly to the appropriate state agencies (including but not limited to the
Colorado Department of Law), Regional fiscal agents, or Participating
Local Governments only;
c.Distribution and oversight of the Statewide Infrastructure Share shall
comply with the terms of this MOU and any Settlement;
d.Appropriate processes for remedial action will be taken against Parties or
Regions that misuse Opioid Funds from the Statewide Infrastructure
Share. Such processes shall include procedures for alleged offending
Parties or Regions to challenge or dispute such remedial action; and
e.Limitations on administrative costs to be expended by recipients for
administering Opioid Funds received from the Statewide Infrastructure
Fund, not to exceed actual costs expended by the recipient or 10% of the
amount received, whichever is less.
4.The distribution and oversight policies and procedures developed by the
Abatement Council, in accordance with Section (0)(3), shall be non-appealable
orders and no Party or Region may seek judicial relief related to the distribution
and oversight of the Statewide Infrastructure Share.
14
Page 87
5.On an annual basis, as determined by the Abatement Council, any Party or
Regional Council that receives funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share shall
provide all expenditure data, including administrative costs, related to any Opioid
Funds it received from the Statewide Infrastructure Share and subject itself to an
accounting as required by the Abatement Council. The Abatement Council shall
publish all expenditure data from the Statewide Infrastructure Share in accordance
with Section (C)(4)(c)(i). The Abatement Council may require the Parties or
Regional Councils that receive funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share to
provide additional outcome related data in accordance with Section (C)(4)(c)(ii)
and the Parties or Regional Councils shall comply with such requirements.
6.Costs associated with the Abatement Council's distribution and oversight of the
Statewide Infrastructure Share, as described in this Section (G), shall be paid for
from the Statewide Infrastructure Share. The Abatement Council shall make all
good faith efforts to limit such costs to the greatest extent possible.
H.General Terms
1.All Parties and Regional Councils shall maintain all records related to the receipt
and expenditure of Opioid Funds for no less than five (5) years and shall make
such records available for review by the Abatement Council, any other Party or
Regional Council, or the public. Records requested by the public shall be
produced in accordance with Colorado's open records laws. Records requested by
the Abatement Council or another Party or a Regional Council shall be produced
within twenty-one (21) days of the date the record request was received. This
requirement does not supplant any Party or Regional Council's obligations under
Colorado's open records laws.
2.If any Party(ies) believes the Abatement Council has violated the terms of this
MOU, the alleging Party(ies) may seek to enforce the terms of this MOU,
provided the alleging Party(ies) first provides notice to the Abatement Council of
the alleged violation and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged violation. In
such an enforcement action, the alleging Party(ies) may only seek to enforce the
terms of the MOU against the State and the Participating Local Governments
from which the Local Government Members of the Abatement Council were
appointed and may only seek declaratory and/or injunctive relief. In defense of
such an enforcement action, the State's Members of the Abatement Council shall
be represented by the State and the Local Government Members shall be
represented by the Participating Local Governments from which the Local
Government Members were appointed. In the event of a conflict, the Abatement
Council and its Members may seek outside representation to defend itself against
such an enforcement action.
3.If any Party(ies) believes another Party(ies), not including the Abatement Council,
violated the terms of this MOU, the alleging Party(ies) may seek to enforce the
terms of this MOU in the court in which any applicable Settlement(s) was entered,
provided the alleging Party(ies) first provide the alleged offending Party(ies)
15
Page 88
notice of the alleged violation(s) and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged
violation(s). In such an enforcement action, any alleging Party or alleged
offending Party(ies) may be represented by their respective public entity in
accordance with Colorado law.
4.Nothing in this MOU shall be interpreted to waive the right of any Party to seek
judicial relief for conduct occurring outside the scope of this MOU that violates
any Colorado law. In such an action, the alleged offending Party(ies), including
the Abatement Council, may be represented by their respective public entities in
accordance with Colorado law. In the event of a conflict, any Party, including the
Abatement Council and its Members, may seek outside representation to defend
itself against such an action.
5.If any Party(ies) believes another Party(ies), Region(s), or individual(s) involved
in the receipt, distribution, or administration of Opioids Funds has violated any
applicable ethics codes or rules, a complaint shall be lodged with the appropriate
forum for handling such matters, such as a local home rule municipality's ethics
board.
6.If any Party(ies) believes another Party(ies), Region(s), or individual(s) involved
in the receipt, distribution, or administration of Opioid Funds violated any
Colorado criminal law, such conduct shall be reported to the appropriate criminal
authorities.
7.Venue for any legal action related to this MOU shall be in a court of competent
jurisdiction where any applicable Settlement(s) is entered.
8.Because recovery under the terms of different Settlement(s) may vary depending
on the number of Parties required to effectuate a Settlement, the Parties may
conditionally agree to sign on to the MOU through a letter of intent, resolution or
similar written statement, declaration or pronouncement declaring their intent to
sign on to the MOU if the threshold for Party participation in a specific Settlement
is achieved. 4
9.This MOU may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
The Parties approve the use of electronic signatures for execution of this MOU.
All use of electronic signatures shall be governed by the Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act, C.R.S. §§ 24-71.3-101, et seq. The Parties agree not to deny the
legal effect or enforceability of the MOU solely because it is in electronic form or
4 For instance, the July 21, 2021 "Distributor Settlement Agreement" includes a "Subdivision Settlement
Agreement Form" that, once filled out and executed, is meant to indicate that Local Government's (or
Subdivision's) election to participate in that Distributor Settlement and also, to require that Local Government to
take steps to formally release any claim it may have against the Settling Distributors. With regard to the
Distributor Settlement Agreement or any other Settlements that include a form similar to the Subdivision
Settlement Agreement Form, the Parties may still conditionally agree to sign on to the MOU if, for instance, the
threshold for Party participation in a specific Settlement is achieved.
16
Page 89
because an electronic record was used in its formation. The Parties agree not to
object to the admissibility of the MOU in the form of an electronic record, or a
paper copy of an electronic document, or a paper copy of a document bearing an
electronic signature, on the ground that it is an electronic record or electronic
signature or that it is not in its original form or is not an original.
10.Each party represents that all procedures necessary to authorize such Party's
execution of this MOU have been performed and that the person signing for such
Party has been authorized to execute the MOU.
I.Payment of Counsel and Litigation Expenses Through a Back-Stop Fund
1.Some Settlements, including the McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc.,
and AmerisourceBergen Corporation ("Distributor") and Johnson &
Johnson/Janssen ("J&J") settlements, may provide for the payment of all or a
portion of the fees and litigation expenses owed by Participating Local
Governments to counsel specifically retained to file suit in the opioid litigation. If
any Settlement is insufficient to cover the fee obligations of the Participating
Local Governments (as discussed and modified by Judge Polster's Order of
August 6 regarding fees for the Distributor and J&J settlements), the deficiencies
will be covered as set forth in further detail below.
2.The Parties also recognize that, as in the Distributor and J&J settlements, certain
Opioid Settling Defendants may offer premiums benefiting the entire state of
Colorado when Participating Local Governments agree to the Settlement(s),
thereby settling their claims in their on-going lawsuits. For example, below is the
chart illustrating how Incentive Payment B (a 25% premium to the entire state)
works in the Distributor Settlement at Section IV.F.2.b (p. 20):
Percentage of Litigating
Subdivision Population
that is lncenti\'e B
Eligible Subdh·ision Incentive Paymcn t 8
Population::;Eli�ibilitv Percentafc
Up to 85% 0%
85%+ 301�'0
86+ 40%
91+ 50%
95+ 60%
99%,-95%
100% 100%
3.If the court in In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804
(N.D. Ohio), or if a Settlement establishes a common benefit fund or similar
device to compensate attorneys for services rendered and expenses incurred that
have benefited plaintiffs generally in the litigation (the "Common Benefit Fund"),
17
Page 90
and/or requires certain governmental plaintiffs to pay a share of their recoveries
from defendants into the Common Benefit Fund ("Court-Ordered Common
Benefit Fund Assessment"), then the Participating Local Governments shall be
required to first seek to have their attorneys' fees and expenses paid through the
Common Benefit Fund.
4.For the Distributor and J&J settlements only, counsel for Participating Local
Governments shall have their expenses otherwise recoverable from Colorado
Participating Local Governments compensated only through the Common Benefit
Fund(s) established in those settlement(s). For the avoidance of doubt, counsel for
Participating Local Governments may recover their attorneys' fees through the
Distributor and J&J settlements and through the other applicable provisions of
this Section (I).
5.In addition, as a means of covering any deficiencies in paying counsel for
Participating Local Governments, a supplemental Colorado Attorney Fee Back
Stop Fund shall be established. The Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund is to
be used to compensate counsel for Participating Local Governments that filed an
initial complaint in the opioid litigation by September 1, 2020 ("Litigating
Participating Local Governments").
6.Payments out of the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund shall be determined
by a committee (the "Opioid Fee and Expense Committee"). The Opioid Fee and
Expense Committee shall consist of the following five (5) members:
a.One (1) member appointed by CCI from a litigating county or from a
litigating county and city municipal corporation;
b.One ( 1) member appointed by CML from a litigating city;
c.One ( 1) member appointed jointly by CCI and CML from a non-litigating
county or city;
d.One (1) member appointed by the Attorney General's Office; and
e.One (1) neutral member jointly appointed by all of the other members
listed above.
7.The Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund shall be funded as follows from any
Settlement, excluding settlements involving McKinsey and payments resulting
from the Purdue or Mallinckrodt bankruptcy. For purposes only of calculating the
funding of the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund, the Parties deem 58% of
the total LG Share and Regional Share to be attributable to the Litigating Local
Governments. The Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund shall be funded by
8.7% of the total LG Share and 4.35% of the total Regional Share at the time such
funds are actually received. No funds deposited into the Colorado Attorney Fee
Back-Stop Fund will be taken from the Statewide Infrastructure Share or State
Share.
18
Page 91
8.Counsel for Litigating Participating Local Governments may apply to the
Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund only after applying to the Common
Benefit Fund.
9.Counsel for Litigating Participating Local Governments may apply to the
Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund for only a shortfall -that is, the
difference between what their fee agreements would entitle them to (as limited by
this Section (I)) minus what they have already collected from the Common
Benefit Fund (including both the "common benefit" and "contingency fee"
calculations, if any). If they receive fees/costs for common benefit work in the
national fee fund, these fees/costs will be allocated proportionately across all their
local government opioid clients based on the allocation model used in the
Negotiation Class website to allocate the appropriate portion to Colorado clients.
10.Counsel for Litigating Participating Local Governments are limited to being paid,
at most, and assuming adequate funds are available in any Common Benefit Fund
and Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund, fees in an amount equal to 15% of
the LG Share and 7.5% of the Regional Share attributable to their Colorado
clients.
11.Any funds remaining in the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund in excess of
the amounts needed to cover the fees and litigation expenses owed by Litigating
Participating Local Governments to their respective counsel shall revert to the
Participating Local Governments according to the allocations described in
Sections (E) and (F). Every two years, the Opioid Fee and Expense Committee
shall assess the amount remaining in the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund
to determine if it is overfunded.
12.Despite the fact that a litigating entity bonus benefits the entire state, no portion of
the State Share shall be used to fund the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund
or in any other way to fund any Participating Local Government's attorneys' fees
and expenses. Because the state did not hire outside counsel, any funds for
attorneys fees that the state receives from the J&J and Distributor settlement will
be deposited into the State Share.
13.To participate in the Colorado Attorney Fee Back-Stop Fund, counsel must follow
the requirements of C.R.S. § 13-17-304.
19
Page 92
This Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding is signed
this a� day of Au�u� , � by:
ney General Philip J. Weiser
20
Page 93
21
This Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding is signed
this ___ day of _____________, _____ by:
______________________________________________
Name & Title___________________________________
On behalf of ___________________________________
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Town Attorney
Page 94
Exhibit A
Page 95
POTENTIAL OPIOID ABATEMENT APPROVED PURPOSES
I.TREATMENT
A.TREATMENT OF OPIOID USE DISORDER AND ITS EFFECTS
1.Expand availability of treatment, including Medication-Assisted Treatment
(MAT), for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and any co-occurring substance use or
mental health issues.
2.Supportive housing, all forms of FDA-approved MAT, counseling, peer-support,
recovery case management and residential treatment with access to medications
for those who need it.
3.Treatment of mental health trauma issues that resulted from the traumatic
experiences of the opioid user (e.g., violence, sexual assault, human trafficking)
and for family members (e.g., surviving family members after an overdose or
overdose fatality).
4.Expand telehealth to increase access to OUD treatment, including MAT, as well
as counseling, psychiatric support, and other treatment and recovery support
services.
5.Fellowships for addiction medicine specialists for direct patient care, instructors,
and clinical research for treatments.
6.Scholarships for certified addiction counselors.
7.Clinicians to obtain training and a waiver under the federal Drug Addiction
Treatment Act to prescribe MAT for OUD.
8.Training for health care providers, students, and other supporting professionals,
such as peer recovery coaches/recovery outreach specialists, including but not
limited to training relating to MAT and harm reduction.
9.Dissemination of accredited web-based training curricula, such as the American
Academy of Addiction Psychiatry’s Provider Clinical Support Service-Opioids
web-based training curriculum and motivational interviewing.
10.Development and dissemination of new accredited curricula, such as the
American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry’s Provider Clinical Support Service
Medication-Assisted Treatment.
11.Development of a multistate/nationally accessible database whereby health care
providers can list currently available in-patient and out-patient OUD treatment
services that are accessible on a real-time basis.
EXHIBIT APage 96
12.Support and reimburse services that include the full American Society of
Addiction Medicine (ASAM) continuum of care for OUD.
13.Improve oversight of Opioid Treatment Programs (OTPs) to assure evidence-
informed practices such as adequate methadone dosing.
B.INTERVENTION
1.Ensure that health care providers are screening for OUD and other risk factors and
know how to appropriately counsel and treat (or refer, if necessary) a patient for
OUD treatment.
2.Fund Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) programs
to reduce the transition from use to disorder.
3.Training and long-term implementation of SBIRT in key systems (health, schools,
colleges, criminal justice, and probation), with a focus on the late adolescence and
young adulthood when transition from misuse to opioid disorder is most common.
4.Purchase automated versions of SBIRT and support ongoing costs of the
technology.
5.Training for emergency room personnel treating opioid overdose patients on post-
discharge planning, including community referrals for MAT, recovery case
management and/or support services.
6.Support work of Emergency Medical Systems, including peer support specialists,
to connect individuals to treatment or other appropriate services following an
opioid overdose or other opioid-related adverse event.
7.Create school-based contacts whom parents can engage to seek immediate
treatment services for their child.
8.Develop best practices on addressing OUD in the workplace.
9.Support assistance programs for health care providers with OUD.
10.Engage non-profits and faith community as a system to support outreach for
treatment.
C.CRIMINAL-JUSTICE-INVOLVED PERSONS
1.Address the needs of persons involved in the criminal justice system who have
OUD and any co-occurring substance use disorders or mental health (SUD/MH)
issues.
EXHIBIT APage 97
2.Support pre-arrest diversion and deflection strategies for persons with OUD and
any co-occurring SUD/MH issues, including established strategies such as:
a.Self-referral strategies such as Angel Programs or the Police Assisted
Addiction Recovery Initiative (PAARI);
b.Active outreach strategies such as the Drug Abuse Response Team
(DART) model;
c.“Naloxone Plus” strategies, which work to ensure that individuals who
have received Naloxone to reverse the effects of an overdose are then
linked to treatment programs;
d.Officer prevention strategies, such as the Law Enforcement Assisted
Diversion (LEAD) model; or
e.Officer intervention strategies such as the Leon County, Florida Adult
Civil Citation Network.
3.Support pre-trial services that connect individuals with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH issues to evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, and
related services.
4.Support treatment and recovery courts for persons with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH issues, but only if they provide referrals to evidence-informed
treatment, including MAT.
5.Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery support, harm
reduction, or other appropriate services to individuals with OUD and any co-
occurring SUD/MH issues who are incarcerated, on probation, or on parole.
6.Provide evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery support, harm
reduction, or other appropriate re-entry services to individuals with OUD and any
co-occurring SUD/MH issues who are leaving jail or prison or who have recently
left jail or prison.
7.Support critical time interventions (CTI), particularly for individuals living with
dual-diagnosis OUD/serious mental illness, and services for individuals who face
immediate risks and service needs and risks upon release from correctional
settings.
D.WOMEN WHO ARE OR MAY BECOME PREGNANT
1.Evidence-informed treatment, including MAT, recovery, and prevention services
for pregnant women or women who could become pregnant and have OUD.
2.Training for obstetricians and other healthcare personnel that work with pregnant
women and their families regarding OUD treatment.
EXHIBIT APage 98
3.Other measures to address Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, including prevention,
care for addiction and education programs.
4.Child and family supports for parenting women with OUD.
5.Enhanced family supports and child care services for parents receiving treatment
for OUD.
E.PEOPLE IN TREATMENT AND RECOVERY
1.The full continuum of care of recovery services for OUD and any co-occurring
substance use or mental health issues, including supportive housing, residential
treatment, medical detox services, peer support services and counseling,
community navigators, case management, and connections to community-based
services.
2.Identifying successful recovery programs such as physician, pilot, and college
recovery programs, and providing support and technical assistance to increase the
number and capacity of high-quality programs to help those in recovery.
3.Training and development of procedures for government staff to appropriately
interact and provide social and other services to current and recovering opioid
users, including reducing stigma.
4.Community-wide stigma reduction regarding treatment and support for persons
with OUD, including reducing the stigma on effective treatment.
5.Engaging non-profits and faith community as a system to support family members
in their efforts to help the opioid user in the family.
II.PREVENTION
F.PRESCRIBING PRACTICES
1.Training for health care providers regarding safe and responsible opioid
prescribing, dosing, and tapering patients off opioids.
2.Academic counter-detailing.
3.Continuing Medical Education (CME) on prescribing of opioids.
4.Support for non-opioid pain treatment alternatives, including training providers to
offer or refer to multi-modal, evidence-informed treatment of pain.
5.Fund development of a multistate/national prescription drug monitoring program
(PDMP) that permits information sharing while providing appropriate safeguards
on sharing of private information, including but not limited to:
EXHIBIT APage 99
a.Integration of PDMP data with electronic health records, overdose
episodes, and decision support tools for health care providers relating to
OUD.
b.Ensuring PDMPs incorporate available overdose/naloxone deployment
data, including the United States Department of Transportation’s
Emergency Medical Technician overdose database.
6.Educating dispensers on appropriate opioid dispensing.
G.MISUSE OF OPIOIDS
1.Corrective advertising/affirmative public education campaigns.
2.Public education relating to drug disposal.
3.Drug take-back disposal or destruction programs.
4.Fund community anti-drug coalitions that engage in drug-abuse prevention
efforts.
5.School-based programs that have demonstrated effectiveness in preventing drug
misuse and seem likely to be effective in preventing the uptake and use of
opioids.
6.Support community coalitions in implementing evidence-informed prevention,
such as reduced social access and physical access, stigma reduction – including
staffing, educational campaigns, or training of coalitions in evidence-informed
implementation.
7.School and community education programs and campaigns for students, families,
school employees, school athletic programs, parent-teacher and student
associations, and others.
8.Engaging non-profits and faith community as a system to support prevention.
H.OVERDOSE DEATHS AND OTHER HARMS
1.Increasing availability and distribution of naloxone and other drugs that treat
overdoses to first responders, overdose patients, opioid users, families and friends
of opioid users, schools, community navigators and outreach workers, drug
offenders upon release from jail/prison, and other members of the general public.
2.Training and education regarding naloxone and other drugs that treat overdoses
for first responders, overdose patients, patients taking opioids, families, schools,
and other members of the general public.
EXHIBIT APage 100
3.Developing data tracking software and applications for overdoses/naloxone
revivals.
4.Public education relating to emergency responses to overdoses.
5.Free naloxone for anyone in the community.
6.Public education relating to immunity and Good Samaritan laws.
7.Educating first responders regarding the existence and operation of immunity and
Good Samaritan laws.
8.Syringe service programs, including supplies, staffing, space, peer support
services, and the full range of harm reduction and treatment services provided by
these programs.
9.Expand access to testing and treatment for infectious diseases such as HIV and
Hepatitis C resulting from intravenous opioid use.
III.ADDITIONAL AREAS
I.SERVICES FOR CHILDREN
1.Support for children’s services: Fund additional positions and services, including
supportive housing and other residential services, relating to children being
removed from the home and/or placed in foster care due to custodial opioid use.
J.FIRST RESPONDERS
1.Law enforcement expenditures relating to the opioid epidemic.
2.Educating first responders regarding appropriate practices and precautions when
dealing with fentanyl or other drugs.
3.Increase electronic prescribing to prevent diversion and forgery.
K.COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP
1.Regional planning to identify goals for opioid reduction and support efforts or to
identify areas and populations with the greatest needs for treatment intervention
services.
2.Government dashboard to track key opioid-related indicators and supports as
identified through collaborative community processes.
EXHIBIT APage 101
L.STAFFING AND TRAINING
1.Funding for programs and services regarding staff training and networking to
improve staff capability to abate the opioid crisis.
2.Support infrastructure and staffing for collaborative cross-systems coordination to
prevent opioid misuse, prevent overdoses, and treat those with OUD (e.g., health
care, primary care, pharmacies, PDMPs, etc.).
M.RESEARCH
1.Funding opioid abatement research.
2.Research improved service delivery for modalities such as SBIRT that
demonstrate promising but mixed results in populations vulnerable to OUD.
3.Support research for novel harm reduction and prevention efforts such as the
provision of fentanyl test strips.
4.Support for innovative supply-side enforcement efforts such as improved
detection of mail-based delivery of synthetic opioids.
5.Expanded research for swift/certain/fair models to reduce and deter opioid misuse
within criminal justice populations that build upon promising approaches used to
address other substances (e.g. Hawaii HOPE and Dakota 24/7).
6.Research expanded modalities such as prescription methadone that can expand
access to MAT.
N.OTHER
1.Administrative costs for any of the approved purposes on this list.
4828-8658-5793, v. 8
EXHIBIT APage 102
Exhibit B
Page 103
Colorado Local Governments*
Government Name County Gov't Type
Multi-
County
Adams County Adams County
Arvada Adams City 2 counties
Aurora Adams City 3 counties
Bennett Adams City 2 counties
Brighton Adams City 2 counties
Commerce City Adams City
Federal Heights Adams City
Lochbuie Adams City 2 counties
Northglenn Adams City 2 counties
Thornton Adams City 2 counties
Westminster Adams City 2 counties
Alamosa County Alamosa County
Alamosa Alamosa City
Hooper Alamosa City
Arapahoe County Arapahoe County
Aurora Arapahoe City 3 counties
Bennett Arapahoe City 2 counties
Bow Mar Arapahoe City 2 counties
Centennial Arapahoe City
Cherry Hills Village Arapahoe City
Columbine Valley Arapahoe City
Deer Trail Arapahoe City
Englewood Arapahoe City
Foxfield Arapahoe City
Glendale Arapahoe City
Greenwood Village Arapahoe City
Littleton Arapahoe City 3 counties
Sheridan Arapahoe City
Archuleta County Archuleta County
Pagosa Springs Archuleta City
Baca County Baca County
Campo Baca City
Pritchett Baca City
Springfield Baca City
Two Buttes Baca City
Vilas Baca City
Walsh Baca City
Bent County Bent County
Las Animas Bent City
Boulder County Boulder County
Boulder Boulder City
Erie Boulder City 2 counties
Jamestown Boulder City
Lafayette Boulder City
1
EXHIBIT BPage 104
Colorado Local Governments*
Government Name County Gov't Type
Multi-
County
Longmont Boulder City 2 counties
Louisville Boulder City
Lyons Boulder City
Nederland Boulder City
Superior Boulder City 2 counties
Ward Boulder City
Broomfield Broomfield City/County
Chaffee County Chaffee County
Buena Vista Chaffee City
Poncha Springs Chaffee City
Salida Chaffee City
Cheyenne County Cheyenne County
Cheyenne Wells Cheyenne City
Kit Carson Cheyenne City
Clear Creek County Clear Creek County
Central City Clear Creek City 2 counties
Empire Clear Creek City
Georgetown Clear Creek City
Idaho Springs Clear Creek City
Silver Plume Clear Creek City
Conejos County Conejos County
Antonito Conejos City
La Jara Conejos City
Manassa Conejos City
Romeo Conejos City
Sanford Conejos City
Costilla County Costilla County
Blanca Costilla City
San Luis Costilla City
Crowley County Crowley County
Crowley Crowley City
Olney Springs Crowley City
Ordway Crowley City
Sugar City Crowley City
Custer County Custer County
Silver Cliff Custer City
Westcliffe Custer City
Delta County Delta County
Cedaredge Delta City
Crawford Delta City
Delta Delta City
Hotchkiss Delta City
Orchard City Delta City
Paonia Delta City
2
EXHIBIT BPage 105
Colorado Local Governments*
Government Name County Gov't Type
Multi-
County
Denver Denver City/County
Dolores County Dolores County
Dove Creek Dolores City
Rico Dolores City
Douglas County Douglas County
Aurora Douglas City 3 counties
Castle Pines Douglas City
Castle Rock Douglas City
Larkspur Douglas City
Littleton Douglas City 3 counties
Lone Tree Douglas City
Parker Douglas City
Eagle County Eagle County
Avon Eagle City
Basalt Eagle City 2 counties
Eagle Eagle City
Gypsum Eagle City
Minturn Eagle City
Red Cliff Eagle City
Vail Eagle City
El Paso County El Paso County
Calhan El Paso City
Colorado Springs El Paso City
Fountain El Paso City
Green Mountain Falls El Paso City 2 counties
Manitou Springs El Paso City
Monument El Paso City
Palmer Lake El Paso City
Ramah El Paso City
Elbert County Elbert County
Elizabeth Elbert City
Kiowa Elbert City
Simla Elbert City
Fremont County Fremont County
Brookside Fremont City
Cañon City Fremont City
Coal Creek Fremont City
Florence Fremont City
Rockvale Fremont City
Williamsburg Fremont City
Garfield County Garfield County
Carbondale Garfield City
Glenwood Springs Garfield City
New Castle Garfield City
3
EXHIBIT BPage 106
Colorado Local Governments*
Government Name County Gov't Type
Multi-
County
Parachute Garfield City
Rifle Garfield City
Silt Garfield City
Gilpin County Gilpin County
Black Hawk Gilpin City
Central City Gilpin City 2 counties
Grand County Grand County
Fraser Grand City
Granby Grand City
Grand Lake Grand City
Hot Sulphur Springs Grand City
Kremmling Grand City
Winter Park Grand City
Gunnison County Gunnison County
Crested Butte Gunnison City
Gunnison Gunnison City
Marble Gunnison City
Mount Crested Butte Gunnison City
Pitkin Gunnison City
Hinsdale County Hinsdale County
Lake City Hinsdale City
Huerfano County Huerfano County
La Veta Huerfano City
Walsenburg Huerfano City
Jackson County Jackson County
Walden Jackson City
Jefferson County Jefferson County
Arvada Jefferson City 2 counties
Bow Mar Jefferson City 2 counties
Edgewater Jefferson City
Golden Jefferson City
Lakeside Jefferson City
Lakewood Jefferson City
Littleton Jefferson City 3 counties
Morrison Jefferson City
Mountain View Jefferson City
Superior Jefferson City 2 counties
Westminster Jefferson City 2 counties
Wheat Ridge Jefferson City
Kiowa County Kiowa County
Eads Kiowa City
Haswell Kiowa City
Sheridan Lake Kiowa City
Kit Carson County Kit Carson County
4
EXHIBIT BPage 107
Colorado Local Governments*
Government Name County Gov't Type
Multi-
County
Bethune Kit Carson City
Burlington Kit Carson City
Flagler Kit Carson City
Seibert Kit Carson City
Stratton Kit Carson City
Vona Kit Carson City
La Plata County La Plata County
Bayfield La Plata City
Durango La Plata City
Ignacio La Plata City
Lake County Lake County
Leadville Lake City
Larimer County Larimer County
Berthoud Larimer City 2 counties
Estes Park Larimer City
Fort Collins Larimer City
Johnstown Larimer City 2 counties
Loveland Larimer City
Timnath Larimer City 2 counties
Wellington Larimer City
Windsor Larimer City 2 counties
Las Animas County Las Animas County
Aguilar Las Animas City
Branson Las Animas City
Cokedale Las Animas City
Kim Las Animas City
Starkville Las Animas City
Trinidad Las Animas City
Lincoln County Lincoln County
Arriba Lincoln City
Genoa Lincoln City
Hugo Lincoln City
Limon Lincoln City
Logan County Logan County
Crook Logan City
Fleming Logan City
Iliff Logan City
Merino Logan City
Peetz Logan City
Sterling Logan City
Mesa County Mesa County
Collbran Mesa City
De Beque Mesa City
Fruita Mesa City
5
EXHIBIT BPage 108
Colorado Local Governments*
Government Name County Gov't Type
Multi-
County
Grand Junction Mesa City
Palisade Mesa City
Mineral County Mineral County
City of Creede Mineral City
Moffat County Moffat County
Craig Moffat City
Dinosaur Moffat City
Montezuma County Montezuma County
Cortez Montezuma City
Dolores Montezuma City
Mancos Montezuma City
Montrose County Montrose County
Montrose Montrose City
Naturita Montrose City
Nucla Montrose City
Olathe Montrose City
Morgan County Morgan County
Brush Morgan City
Fort Morgan Morgan City
Hillrose Morgan City
Log Lane Village Morgan City
Wiggins Morgan City
Otero County Otero County
Cheraw Otero City
Fowler Otero City
La Junta Otero City
Manzanola Otero City
Rocky Ford Otero City
Swink Otero City
Ouray County Ouray County
Ouray Ouray City
Ridgway Ouray City
Park County Park County
Alma Park City
Fairplay Park City
Phillips County Phillips County
Haxtun Phillips City
Holyoke Phillips City
Paoli Phillips City
Pitkin County Pitkin County
Aspen Pitkin City
Basalt Pitkin City 2 counties
Snowmass Village Pitkin City
Prowers County Prowers County
6
EXHIBIT BPage 109
Colorado Local Governments*
Government Name County Gov't Type
Multi-
County
Granada Prowers City
Hartman Prowers City
Holly Prowers City
Lamar Prowers City
Wiley Prowers City
Pueblo County Pueblo County
Boone Pueblo City
Pueblo Pueblo City
Rye Pueblo City
Rio Blanco County Rio Blanco County
Meeker Rio Blanco City
Rangely Rio Blanco City
Rio Grande County Rio Grande County
Center Rio Grande City 2 counties
Del Norte Rio Grande City
Monte Vista Rio Grande City
South Fork Rio Grande City
Routt County Routt County
Hayden Routt City
Oak Creek Routt City
Steamboat Springs Routt City
Yampa Routt City
Saguache County Saguache County
Bonanza Saguache City
Center Saguache City 2 counties
Crestone Saguache City
Moffat Saguache City
Saguache Saguache City
San Juan County San Juan County
Silverton San Juan City
San Miguel County San Miguel County
Mountain Village San Miguel City
Norwood San Miguel City
Ophir San Miguel City
Sawpit San Miguel City
Telluride San Miguel City
Sedgwick County Sedgwick County
Julesburg Sedgwick City
Ovid Sedgwick City
Sedgwick Sedgwick City
Summit County Summit County
Blue River Summit City
Breckenridge Summit City
Dillon Summit City
7
EXHIBIT BPage 110
Colorado Local Governments*
Government Name County Gov't Type
Multi-
County
Frisco Summit City
Montezuma Summit City
Silverthorne Summit City
Teller County Teller County
Cripple Creek Teller City
Green Mountain Falls Teller City 2 counties
Victor Teller City
Woodland Park Teller City
Washington County Washington County
Akron Washington City
Otis Washington City
Weld County Weld County
Ault Weld City
Berthoud Weld City 2 counties
Brighton Weld City 2 counties
Dacono Weld City
Eaton Weld City
Erie Weld City 2 counties
Evans Weld City
Firestone Weld City
Fort Lupton Weld City
Frederick Weld City
Garden City Weld City
Gilcrest Weld City
Greeley Weld City
Grover Weld City
Hudson Weld City
Johnstown Weld City 2 counties
Keenesburg Weld City
Kersey Weld City
La Salle Weld City
Lochbuie Weld City 2 counties
Longmont Weld City 2 counties
Mead Weld City
Milliken Weld City
Northglenn Weld City 2 counties
Nunn Weld City
Pierce Weld City
Platteville Weld City
Raymer (New Raymer)Weld City
Severance Weld City
Thornton Weld City 2 counties
Timnath Weld City 2 counties
Windsor Weld City 2 counties
8
EXHIBIT BPage 111
Colorado Local Governments*
Government Name County Gov't Type
Multi-
County
Yuma County Yuma County
Eckley Yuma City
Wray Yuma City
Yuma Yuma City
*This list includes all 64 Colorado counties and all 271 municipalities listed in the 2019 Census. Cities located
in multiple counties are listed under each corresponding county subheading. City and County of Denver and
City and County of Broomfield are counted in both the city and county totals. The City of Carbonate is not
included in this list, as there was no population in the 2019 Census data.
9
This list will be reconciled as necessary to be consistent with the terms of Settlement(s) with Opioid Settling
Defendant(s)
EXHIBIT BPage 112
Exhibit C
Page 113
EXHIBIT CPage 114
Exhibit D
Page 115
Exhibit D - Allocations to Colorado County Areas
County Percentage of LG Share
Adams 9.4247%
Alamosa 0.5081%
Arapahoe 10.8071%
Archuleta 0.1370%
Baca 0.0592%
Bent 0.1133%
Boulder 5.7936%
Broomfield 1.0014%
Chaffee 0.3604%
Cheyenne 0.0159%
Clear Creek 0.1380%
Conejos 0.2108%
Costilla 0.0552%
Crowley 0.0934%
Custer 0.0412%
Delta 0.5440%
Denver 15.0042%
Dolores 0.0352%
Douglas 3.6696%
Eagle 0.6187%
El Paso 11.9897%
Elbert 0.2804%
Fremont 0.9937%
Garfield 0.8376%
Gilpin 0.0561%
Grand 0.2037%
Gunnison 0.1913%
Hinsdale 0.0112%
Huerfano 0.2505%
Jackson 0.0310%
Jefferson 10.5173%
Kiowa 0.0142%
Kit Carson 0.0940%
La Plata 0.8127%
Lake 0.0990%
Larimer 6.5211%
Las Animas 0.6304%
Lincoln 0.0819%
Logan 0.3815%
Mesa 2.8911%
Mineral 0.0039%
Moffat 0.2326%
Montezuma 0.4429%
Page 1 EXHIBIT DPage 116
Montrose 0.5695%
Morgan 0.4677%
Otero 0.4486%
Ouray 0.0535%
Park 0.1674%
Phillips 0.0714%
Pitkin 0.1747%
Prowers 0.1727%
Pueblo 5.6757%
Rio Blanco 0.1013%
Rio Grande 0.2526%
Routt 0.3837%
Saguache 0.0666%
San Juan 0.0097%
San Miguel 0.1005%
Sedgwick 0.0618%
Summit 0.3761%
Teller 0.6219%
Washington 0.0357%
Weld 3.8908%
Yuma 0.0992%
TOTAL 100.0000%
Page 2 EXHIBIT DPage 117
Exhibit E
Page 118
Government Name
Intracounty
Share
Adams County 68.3372%
Arvada (2 Counties)0.2632%
Aurora (3 Counties)4.6336%
Bennett (2 Counties)0.1670%
Brighton (2 Counties)1.4527%
Commerce City 4.7314%
Federal Heights 1.1457%
Lochbuie (2 Counties)0.0001%
Northglenn (2 Counties)2.0913%
Thornton (2 Counties)10.6435%
Westminster (2 Counties)6.5342%
Alamosa County 85.3075%
Alamosa 14.6818%
Hooper 0.0108%
Arapahoe County 42.7003%
Aurora (3 Counties)35.5997%
Bennett (2 Counties)0.0324%
Bow Mar (2 Counties)0.0159%
Centennial 0.4411%
Cherry Hills Village 0.6685%
Columbine Valley 0.1601%
Deer Trail 0.0003%
Englewood 5.5850%
Foxfield 0.0372%
Glendale 1.2289%
Greenwood Village 2.8305%
Littleton (3 Counties)8.5654%
Sheridan 2.1347%
Archuleta County 90.0864%
Pagosa Springs 9.9136%
Baca County 85.9800%
Campo 2.4443%
Pritchett 1.5680%
Springfield 7.0100%
Exhibit E - Intracounty Allocations1,2
The below chart depicts the default percentage that each Local Government will receive from the LG
Share amount attributed to its County Area, as described in Section (E)(3) of the MOU. The chart
assumes full participation by all Local Governments
Page 1 EXHIBIT EPage 119
Government Name
Intracounty
Share
Two Buttes 0.4766%
Vilas 0.9070%
Walsh 1.6141%
Bent County 80.9608%
Las Animas 19.0392%
Boulder County 47.6311%
Boulder 31.7629%
Erie (2 Counties)0.3634%
Jamestown 0.0086%
Lafayette 3.3203%
Longmont (2 Counties)14.6833%
Louisville 1.4455%
Lyons 0.5916%
Nederland 0.1646%
Superior (2 Counties)0.0258%
Ward 0.0030%
Broomfield County/City 100.0000%
Chaffee County 74.8440%
Buena Vista 5.8841%
Poncha Springs 4.2369%
Salida 15.0350%
Cheyenne County 66.8002%
Cheyenne Wells 0.8586%
Kit Carson 32.3412%
Clear Creek County 92.2164%
Central City (2 Counties)0.0000%
Empire 0.3364%
Georgetown 1.9063%
Idaho Springs 4.7625%
Silver Plume 0.7784%
Conejos County 77.1204%
Antonito 4.6338%
La Jara 2.4313%
Manassa 1.0062%
Romeo 2.4270%
Sanford 12.3812%
Page 2 EXHIBIT EPage 120
Government Name
Intracounty
Share
Costilla County 97.3454%
Blanca 1.2036%
San Luis 1.4509%
Crowley County 80.7081%
Crowley 4.3597%
Olney Springs 8.3683%
Ordway 0.1853%
Sugar City 6.3786%
Custer County 96.6858%
Silver Cliff 0.7954%
Westcliffe 2.5188%
Delta County 76.3512%
Cedaredge 3.6221%
Crawford 0.4938%
Delta 16.2658%
Hotchkiss 1.0963%
Orchard City 0.1473%
Paonia 2.0236%
Denver County/City 100.0000%
Dolores County 76.3307%
Dove Creek 17.3127%
Rico 6.3566%
Douglas County 71.8404%
Aurora (3 Counties)0.2099%
Castle Pines 0.2007%
Castle Rock 13.5204%
Larkspur 0.0856%
Littleton (3 Counties)0.0156%
Lone Tree 5.2786%
Parker 8.8487%
Eagle County 60.8236%
Avon 7.6631%
Basalt (2 Counties)2.2311%
Eagle 3.1376%
Gypsum 1.7469%
Minturn 0.7771%
Page 3 EXHIBIT EPage 121
Government Name
Intracounty
Share
Red Cliff 0.0957%
Vail 23.5250%
El Paso County 18.4181%
Calhan 0.0228%
Colorado Springs 80.1161%
Fountain 0.9892%
Green Mountain Falls (2 Counties)0.0149%
Manitou Springs 0.2411%
Monument 0.1492%
Palmer Lake 0.0455%
Ramah 0.0033%
Elbert County 86.5840%
Elizabeth 10.2633%
Kiowa 1.5455%
Simla 1.6072%
Fremont County 60.7882%
Brookside 0.0348%
Cañon City 30.9017%
Coal Creek 0.0476%
Florence 8.0681%
Rockvale 0.0687%
Williamsburg 0.0907%
Garfield County 76.3371%
Carbondale 2.4698%
Glenwood Springs 11.8141%
New Castle 1.4295%
Parachute 1.0653%
Rifle 5.2733%
Silt 1.6110%
Gilpin County 46.8613%
Black Hawk 46.3909%
Central City (2 Counties)6.7478%
Grand County 80.1046%
Fraser 2.4903%
Granby 5.4008%
Grand Lake 0.3174%
Hot Sulphur Springs 0.1431%
Kremmling 2.9284%
Page 4 EXHIBIT EPage 122
Government Name
Intracounty
Share
Winter Park 8.6154%
Gunnison County 88.9185%
Crested Butte 2.3562%
Gunnison 5.9501%
Marble 0.1714%
Mount Crested Butte 2.5657%
Pitkin 0.0381%
Hinsdale County 76.0940%
Lake City 23.9060%
Huerfano County 68.2709%
La Veta 11.0719%
Walsenburg 20.6572%
Jackson County 61.5339%
Walden 38.4661%
Jefferson County 58.2140%
Arvada (2 Counties)11.9733%
Bow Mar (2 Counties)0.0087%
Edgewater 0.6604%
Golden 3.4815%
Lakeside 0.0030%
Lakewood 15.9399%
Littleton (3 Counties)0.6176%
Morrison 0.2205%
Mountain View 0.1344%
Superior (2 Counties)0.0000%
Westminster (2 Counties)5.4779%
Wheat Ridge 3.2689%
Kiowa County 93.2138%
Eads 5.3777%
Haswell 0.6402%
Sheridan Lake 0.7682%
Kit Carson County 86.3178%
Bethune 0.1841%
Burlington 12.0640%
Flagler 0.4264%
Seibert 0.0291%
Stratton 0.9012%
Page 5 EXHIBIT EPage 123
Government Name
Intracounty
Share
Vona 0.0775%
La Plata County 66.8874%
Bayfield 1.6292%
Durango 29.2985%
Ignacio 2.1849%
Lake County 73.4523%
Leadville 26.5477%
Larimer County 56.0589%
Berthoud (2 Counties)0.4139%
Estes Park 0.3502%
Fort Collins 18.5702%
Johnstown (2 Counties)0.0711%
Loveland 23.4493%
Timnath (2 Counties)0.2964%
Wellington 0.3653%
Windsor (2 Counties)0.4248%
Las Animas County 77.8076%
Aguilar 0.0751%
Branson 0.0101%
Cokedale 0.0188%
Kim 0.0101%
Starkville 0.0087%
Trinidad 22.0696%
Lincoln County 91.3222%
Arriba 0.3444%
Genoa 0.2222%
Hugo 1.4778%
Limon 6.6333%
Logan County 72.7982%
Crook 0.0931%
Fleming 0.3413%
Iliff 0.0095%
Merino 0.4702%
Peetz 0.2029%
Sterling 26.0848%
Mesa County 60.8549%
Collbran 0.0920%
Page 6 EXHIBIT EPage 124
Government Name
Intracounty
Share
De Beque 0.0123%
Fruita 1.6696%
Grand Junction 37.1505%
Palisade 0.2208%
Mineral County 87.6744%
City of Creede 12.3256%
Moffat County 91.7981%
Craig 8.1862%
Dinosaur 0.0157%
Montezuma County 79.6682%
Cortez 18.6459%
Dolores 0.6106%
Mancos 1.0753%
Montrose County 92.8648%
Montrose 6.5980%
Naturita 0.1551%
Nucla 0.0703%
Olathe 0.3118%
Morgan County 61.6991%
Brush 8.5522%
Fort Morgan 27.8214%
Hillrose 0.1986%
Log Lane Village 0.6424%
Wiggins 1.0863%
Otero County 60.8168%
Cheraw 0.1888%
Fowler 1.0413%
La Junta 25.9225%
Manzanola 0.6983%
Rocky Ford 8.8215%
Swink 2.5109%
Ouray County 76.0810%
Ouray 17.6541%
Ridgway 6.2649%
Park County 96.3983%
Alma 0.7780%
Page 7 EXHIBIT EPage 125
Government Name
Intracounty
Share
Fairplay 2.8237%
Phillips County 52.3463%
Haxtun 13.9505%
Holyoke 33.1803%
Paoli 0.5228%
Pitkin County 47.1379%
Aspen 42.0707%
Basalt (2 Counties)1.1156%
Snowmass Village 9.6757%
Prowers County 70.4524%
Granada 0.9965%
Hartman 0.3164%
Holly 4.9826%
Lamar 21.5860%
Wiley 1.6661%
Pueblo County 54.6622%
Boone 0.0019%
Pueblo 45.3350%
Rye 0.0008%
Rio Blanco County 78.2831%
Meeker 9.1326%
Rangely 12.5843%
Rio Grande County 68.0724%
Center (2 Counties)0.7713%
Del Norte 6.7762%
Monte Vista 20.4513%
South Fork 3.9288%
Routt County 58.5353%
Hayden 1.0679%
Oak Creek 0.6360%
Steamboat Springs 39.4499%
Yampa 0.3109%
Saguache County 92.8796%
Bonanza 0.1367%
Center (2 Counties)6.3687%
Crestone 0.0137%
Page 8 EXHIBIT EPage 126
Government Name
Intracounty
Share
Moffat 0.3553%
Saguache 0.2460%
San Juan County 87.0423%
Silverton 12.9577%
San Miguel County 48.7493%
Mountain Village 25.7930%
Norwood 0.4078%
Ophir 0.0816%
Sawpit 0.0272%
Telluride 24.9411%
Sedgwick County 98.7331%
Julesburg 0.3830%
Ovid 0.0295%
Sedgwick 0.8544%
Summit County 57.0567%
Blue River 0.5011%
Breckenridge 26.1112%
Dillon 4.1421%
Frisco 6.5096%
Montezuma 0.0169%
Silverthorne 5.6623%
Teller County 66.1557%
Cripple Creek 17.2992%
Green Mountain Falls (2 Counties)0.0322%
Victor 3.1685%
Woodland Park 13.3445%
Washington County 99.1320%
Akron 0.7659%
Otis 0.1021%
Weld County 51.9387%
Ault 0.3202%
Berthoud (2 Counties)0.0061%
Brighton (2 Counties)0.0927%
Dacono 0.6104%
Eaton 0.4573%
Erie (2 Counties)0.8591%
Evans 4.5121%
Page 9 EXHIBIT EPage 127
Government Name
Intracounty
Share
Firestone 1.4648%
Fort Lupton 0.8502%
Frederick 1.2228%
Garden City 0.1514%
Gilcrest 0.1580%
Greeley 30.6922%
Grover 0.0852%
Hudson 0.0066%
Johnstown (2 Counties)1.5416%
Keenesburg 0.0215%
Kersey 0.1378%
La Salle 0.4128%
Lochbuie (2 Counties)0.4004%
Longmont (2 Counties)0.0154%
Mead 0.0941%
Milliken 1.5373%
Northglenn (2 Counties)0.0030%
Nunn 0.2558%
Pierce 0.0948%
Platteville 0.3712%
Raymer (New Raymer)0.0597%
Severance 0.0403%
Thornton (2 Counties)0.0000%
Timnath (2 Counties)0.0000%
Windsor (2 Counties)1.5865%
Yuma County 75.5598%
Eckley 2.5422%
Wray 10.2148%
Yuma 11.6832%
Page 10
1 These allocations are based on the allocation model used in the Negotiation Class website. The allocation model is the product of prolonged and intensive
research, analysis, and discussion by and among members of the court-appointed Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee and Settlement Committee and their
retained public health and health economics experts, as well as a series of meetings with scores of cities, counties and subdivisions. Additional information
about the allocation model is available on the Negotiation Class website.
The allocations in the Negotiation Class website use two different methodologies:
County-Level Allocation
The allocation model uses three factors, based on reliable, detailed, and objective data collected and reported by the federal government, to determine the
share of a settlement fund that each county will receive. The three factors are: (1) the amount of opioids shipped to the county, (2) the number of opioid
deaths in that county, and (3) the number of people who suffer opioid use disorder in that county.
County/Municipal-Level Allocation
The county/municipal-level allocation is a default allocation to be used if another agreement is not reached between the county and its constituent cities.
The formula uses U.S. Census Bureau data on local government spending. This data covers cities and counties for 98% of the U.S. population. If a jurisdiction
lacked this data, it was extrapolated based on available data.
2 The municipalities of Bow Mar, Johnstown, and Timnath were not reflected as being in multiple counties in the Negotiation Class website. The estimated
allocations to those cities are based on the same methodology used in the website, in consultation with the expert. For cities in multiple counties, please
see each county in which that city lies.
EXHIBIT EPage 128
Exhibit F
Page 129
Region Number Region Description Total State Share
1 Northwest 0.9522%
2 Larimer 6.5211%
3 Weld 3.8908%
4 Logan 1.5896%
5 North Central 2.1061%
6 Boulder 5.7936%
7 Broomfield 1.0014%
8 Adams 9.4247%
9 Arapahoe 10.8071%
10 Jefferson 10.7114%
11 Denver 15.0042%
12 Douglas 3.6696%
13 Mesa 2.8911%
14 Southwest 1.4700%
15 Central 1.5627%
16 El Paso/Teller 12.6116%
17 Southwest Corner 1.4375%
18 South Central 1.0973%
19 Southeast 7.4580%
Total 100.0000%
Regional Allocations
EXHIBIT FPage 130
Exhibit G
Page 131
Regional Governance Models
A.Membership Structure
Single-County Regions
1. Voting Members (Recommended List: Participating Local Governments to Decide)
•1 or 2 representatives appointed by the county (can be commissioners)
•1 representative appointed from the public health department
•1 representative from the county human services department
•1 representative appointed from law enforcement within region (sheriff, police,
local city or town district attorney, etc.)
•1 representative appointed from a municipal or county court system within region
•1-3 representatives (total) appointed by the cities within the county (or other city
or cities agreed upon) (can be councilmembers and mayors)
•Such other representatives as participating counties/cities agree on (not to include
providers who may be recipients of funds)
2.Non-Voting Members (Optional but strongly encouraged)
•Representatives from behavioral health providers
•Representatives from health care providers
•Recovery/treatment experts
•Other county or city representatives
•A representative from the Attorney General’s Office
•Community representative(s), preferably those with lived experience with the
opioid crisis
•Harm reduction experts
Multi-County Regions
1. Voting Members (Recommended List: Participating Local Governments to Decide)
•1 representative appointed by each county (can be commissioners)
•1 representative appointed by a rotating city within each county (or other city
agreed upon) (can be councilmembers and mayors)
•1 representative from each public health department within the region
•1 representative from a county human services department
•At least 1 representative appointed from law enforcement within region (sheriff,
police, local city or town district attorney, etc.)
•1 representative from a municipal or county court system within region
•Such other representatives as participating counties/cities agree on (not to include
providers who may be recipients of funds)
2.Non-Voting Members (Optional)
•Representatives from behavioral health providers
EXHIBIT GPage 132
•Representatives from health care providers
•Recovery/treatment experts
•Other county or city representatives
•A representative from the Attorney General’s Office
•Community representative(s), preferably those with lived experience with the
opioid crisis.
•Harm reduction experts
Single-County Single-City Regions (Denver & Broomfield)
1. Voting Members (Recommended List: Participating Local Government to Decide)
1
•1 representative appointed by the city and county
•1 representative appointed from the public health department
•1 representative from the county human services department
•1 representative appointed from law enforcement within region (sheriff, police,
district attorney, etc.)
•1 representative appointed from a municipal or county court system within region
•Such other representatives as participating counties/cities agree on (not to include
providers who may be recipients of funds)
2.Non-Voting Members (Optional)
•Representatives from behavioral health providers
•Representatives from health care providers
•Recovery/treatment experts
•Other county or city representatives
•A representative from the Attorney General’s Office
•Community representative(s), preferably those with lived experience with the
opioid crisis.
•Harm reduction experts
B.Member Terms
•Regions may establish terms of appointment for members. Appointment terms
may be staggered.
C.Procedures
•Regions will be governed by an intergovernmental agreement (“IGA”) or
memorandum of understanding (“MOU”).
•Regions may adopt the Model Colorado Regional Opioid Intergovernmental
Agreement, attached here as Exhibit G-1, in its entirety or alter or amend it as
they deem appropriate.
1 In Denver, the Mayor shall make voting member appointments to the Regional Council. In Broomfield, the City
and County Manager shall make voting member appointments to the Regional Council.
EXHIBIT GPage 133
•Regions may establish their own procedures through adoption of bylaws (model
bylaws to be made available).
•Meetings of regional board/committee shall be open to the public and comply
with the Colorado Open Meetings Law (including requirement to keep minutes).
D.Financial Responsibility/Controls
•A local government entity shall nominate and designate a fiscal agent for the
Region.
•A Regional fiscal agent must be appointed by the Regional Council on an annual
basis. A Regional fiscal agent may serve as long as the Regional Council
determines is appropriate, including the length of any Settlement that
contemplates the distribution of Opioid Funds within Colorado. However, the
Regional fiscal agent also can change over time.
•Regional fiscal agents must be a board of county commissioners or a city or town
council or executive department, such as a department of finance.
•Yearly reporting by fiscal agent (using standard form) to the Abatement Council.
•All documents subject to CORA.
E.Conflicts of Interest
•Voting members shall abide by the conflict-of-interest rules applicable to local
government officials under state law.
F.Ethics Laws
•Voting members shall abide by applicable state or local ethics laws, as
appropriate.
G.Authority
•The Regional Council for each region shall have authority to decide how funds
allocated to the region shall be distributed in accordance with the Colorado MOU
and shall direct the fiscal agent accordingly.
•Any necessary contracts will be entered into by the fiscal agent, subject to
approval by the Regional Council.
H.Legal Status
•The region shall not be considered a separate legal entity, unless the Participating
Local Governments decide, through an IGA, to create a separate governmental
entity.
EXHIBIT GPage 134
Exhibit G-1
Page 135
MODEL COLORADO REGIONAL OPIOID
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT 2
THIS MODEL COLORADO REGIONAL OPIOID INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the “Regional
Agreement”) is made between _________________, a Participating Local Government, as defined in the
Colorado MOU, in the __________________ Region (“____________”) and ______________________, a
Participating Local Government in the ___________ Region, (“_____________”), individually herein a
“Regional PLG” and collectively the “Regional PLGs.””
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado and Participating Local Governments executed the Colorado
Opioids Summary Memorandum of Understanding on _______ 2021 (the “Colorado MOU”), establishing
the manner in which Opioid Funds shall be divided and distributed within the State of Colorado;
WHEREAS, the Regional Agreement assumes and incorporates the definitions and provisions
contained in the Colorado MOU, and the Regional Agreement shall be construed in conformity with the
Colorado MOU3;
WHEREAS, all Opioid Funds, regardless of allocation, shall be used for Approved Purposes;
WHEREAS, Participating Local Governments shall organize themselves into Regions, as further
depicted in Exhibit E to the Colorado MOU;
2 This Model Regional Agreement is meant to serve as an example for the various Regions and to facilitate the
flow of Opioid Funds to their intended purposes. Regions are free to adopt this Regional Agreement in its entirety
or alter or amend it as they deem appropriate.
3 When drafting agreements like this Regional Agreement, Regional PLGs should be conscious of the definitions
used therein so as not to confuse such definitions with those used in the Colorado MOU. The Definitions in the
Colorado MOU shall supersede any definitions used by Regional PLGs in a Regional Agreement.
EXHIBIT G-1Page 136
WHEREAS, Regions may consist of Single-County Regions, Multi-County Regions, or Single County-
Single City Regions (Denver and Broomfield).
WHEREAS, there shall be a 60% direct allocation of Opioid Funds to Regions through a Regional
Share;
WHEREAS, each Region shall be eligible to receive a Regional Share according to Exhibit C to the
Colorado MOU;
WHEREAS, the Colorado MOU establishes the procedures by which each Region shall be entitled
to Opioid Funds from the Abatement Council and administer its Regional Share allocation;
WHEREAS, the procedures established by the Colorado MOU include a requirement that each
Region shall create its own Regional Council;
WHEREAS, all aspects of the creation, administration, and operation of the Regional Council
shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Colorado MOU;
WHEREAS, each such Regional Council shall designate a fiscal agent from a county or municipal
government within that Region;
WHEREAS, each such Regional Council shall submit a two-year plan to the Abatement Council
that identifies the Approved Purposes for which the requested funds will be used, and the Regional
Council’s fiscal agent shall provide data and a certification to the Abatement Council regarding
compliance with its two-year plan on an annual basis;
WHEREAS, the Regional Agreement pertains to the procedures for the Regional PLGs to
establish a Regional Council, designate a fiscal agent, and request and administer Opioid Funds in a
manner consistent with the Colorado MOU;
EXHIBIT G-1Page 137
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set
forth and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
Regional PLGs incorporate the recitals set forth above and agree as follows:
1.DEFINITIONS. The defined terms used in this Regional Agreement shall have the same meanings as
in the Colorado MOU4. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined within the Regional
Agreement or in the Colorado MOU shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the body of the
Regional Agreement.
2.OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGIONAL PLGS. The Regional PLGs shall perform their respective
obligations as set forth in the Regional Agreement, the Colorado MOU and the accompanying exhibits
to the Colorado MOU and incorporated herein by reference.
3.REGIONAL COUNCIL.
3.1. Purpose: In accordance with the Colorado MOU, a Regional Council, consisting of
representatives appointed by the Regional PLGs, shall be created to oversee the procedures by
which a Region may request Opioid Funds from the Abatement Council and the procedures by
which the allocation of its Region’s Share of Opioid Funds are administered.
3.2. Membership: The Regional Council of a Multi-County or Single County Region shall
consist of the following:
a.Multi-County Region:
(i)Voting Members. Voting Members shall be appointed by the
Regional PLGs. The Regional PLGs shall collaborate to appoint
Regional Council members and to the extent practicable, Voting
Members shall be selected from different counties and cities. No
single county or city should dominate the make-up of the Regional
Council. Voting Members shall be selected as follows:
(1)1 representative appointed by each county (can be
commissioners).
(2)1 representative appointed from a rotating city within each
county (or other city agreed upon) (can be councilmembers
and mayors). A rotating city member shall be selected by
majority vote of the cities within each county who do not
have a Voting Member currently sitting on the Regional
4 See FN 2, supra.
EXHIBIT G-1Page 138
Council.
(3)1 representative from each public health department within
the region.
(4)1 representative from a county human services department.
(5)At least 1 representative appointed from law enforcement
within the region (sheriff, police, local city or town district
attorney, etc.).
(6)1 representative from a municipal or county court system
within the region.
b.Single-County Region:
(i)Voting Members. Voting Members shall be appointed by the
Regional PLGs. The Regional PLGs shall collaborate to appoint
Regional Council members and to the extent practicable, Voting
Members shall be selected from different cities within the region.
No single city should dominate the make-up of the Regional
Council. Voting Members shall be selected as follows:
(1)1 or 2 representatives appointed by the county (can be
commissioners)
(2)1 representative appointed from the public health
department
(3)1 representative from the county human services
department
(4)1 representative appointed from law enforcement within
region (sheriff, police, local city or town district attorney,
etc.)
(5)1 representative appointed from a municipal or county
court system within region
(6)1-3 representatives (total) appointed by rotating cities
within the county (or other city or cities agreed upon) (can
be councilmembers and mayors). Rotating city members
shall be selected by majority vote of the cities who do not
have a Voting Member currently sitting on the Regional
Council.
(7)Such other representatives as participating counties/cities
agree on (not to include providers who may be recipients of
EXHIBIT G-1Page 139
funds)
c.Non-Voting Members. For both Multi-County and Single County
Regions, Non-Voting Members are optional but are strongly encouraged.
Non-voting members shall serve in an advisory capacity. Any Non-Voting
Members shall be appointed by the Regional PLGs and may be comprised
of all or some of the following, not to include potential recipients of funds:
(i)Representatives from behavioral health providers.
(ii)Representatives from health care providers.
(iii)Recovery/treatment experts.
(iv)Other county or city representatives.
(v)A representative from the Attorney General’s Office.
(vi)Community representative(s), preferably those with lived
experience with the opioid crisis.
(vii)Harm reduction experts.
d.Acting Chair: The Voting Members for both Multi-County and Single-
County Regions shall appoint one member to serve as Acting Chair of the
Regional Council. The Acting Chair’s primary responsibilities shall be to
schedule periodic meetings and votes of the Regional Council as needed
and to serve as the point of contact for disputes within the Region. The
Acting Chair must be either a Member from a county within a Region,
such as a county commissioner or their designee, or a Member from a city
or town within a Region, such as a mayor or city or town council member
or their designee.
e.Non-Participation: A Local Government that chooses not to become a
Participating Local Government in the Colorado MOU shall not receive
any Opioid Funds from the Regional Share or participate in the Regional
Council.
f.Terms: The Regional Council shall be established within ninety (90)
days of the first Settlement being entered by a court of competent
jurisdiction, including any bankruptcy court. In order to do so, within sixty
(60) days of the first Settlement being entered, CCI and CML shall jointly
recommend six (6) Voting Members, and so long as such
recommendations comply with the terms of Section 3.2 (a) or (b), the
Regional Council shall consist of CCI/CML’s recommended Members for
EXHIBIT G-1Page 140
an initial term not to exceed one year.5 Thereafter, Voting Members shall
be appointed in accordance with Section 3.2 (a) or (b) and shall serve two-
year terms. Following the expiration of that two-year term, the Regional
PLGs, working in concert, shall reappoint that Voting Member, or appoint
a new Voting Member according to Section 3.2 (a) or (b).
(i)If a Voting Member resigns or is otherwise removed from the
Regional Council prior to the expiration of their term, a replacement
Voting Member shall be appointed within sixty (60) days in
accordance with Section 3.2 (a) or (b) to serve the remainder of the
term. If the Regional PLGs are unable to fill a Voting Member
vacancy within sixty (60) days, the existing Voting Members of the
Regional Council at the time of the vacancy shall work collectively
to appoint a replacement Voting Member in accordance with
Section 3.2 (a) or (b). At the end of his or her term, the individual
serving as that replacement Voting Member may be reappointed by
the Regional PLGs to serve a full term consistent with this Section.
(ii)The purpose of the two-year term is to allow Regional PLGs an
increased opportunity to serve on the Regional Council. However,
Regional Council members who have already served on the
Regional Council may be appointed more than once and may serve
consecutive terms if appointed to do so by the Regional Council.
3.3. Duties: The Regional Council is primarily responsible for engaging with the Abatement
Council on behalf of its Region and following the procedures outlined in the Colorado MOU for
requesting Opioid Funds from the Regional Share, which shall include developing 2-year plans,
amending those plans as appropriate, and providing the Abatement Council with data through its
fiscal agent regarding Opioid Fund expenditures. Upon request from the Abatement Council, the
Regional Council may also be subject to an accounting from the Abatement Council.
3.4. Governance: A Regional Council may establish its own procedures through adoption of
bylaws if needed. Any governing documents must be consistent with the other provisions in this
section and the Colorado MOU.
3.5. Authority: The terms of the Colorado MOU control the authority of a Regional Council
and a Regional Council shall not stray outside the bounds of the authority and power vested by
the Colorado MOU. Should a Regional Council require legal assistance in determining its authority,
5 Local Governments within Multi-County or Single County Regions may decide to select initial Voting Members of
the Regional Council between themselves and without CCI and CML involvement. However, the Regional Council
must be established within ninety (90) days of the first Settlement being entered by a court of competent
jurisdiction, including any bankruptcy court.
EXHIBIT G-1Page 141
it may seek guidance from the legal counsel of the county or municipal government of the
Regional Council’s fiscal agent at the time the issue arises.
3.6. Collaboration: The Regional Council shall facilitate collaboration between the State,
Participating Local Governments within its Region, the Abatement Council, and other
stakeholders within its Region for the purposes of sharing data, outcomes, strategies, and other
relevant information related to abating the opioid crisis in Colorado.
3.7. Transparency: The Regional Council shall operate with all reasonable transparency and
abide by all Colorado laws relating to open records and meetings. To the extent the Abatement
Council requests outcome-related data from the Regional Council, the Regional Council shall
provide such data in an effort to determine best methods for abating the opioid crisis in Colorado.
3.8. Conflicts of Interest: Voting Members shall abide by the conflict-of-interest rules
applicable to local government officials under state law.
3.9. Ethics Laws: Voting Members shall abide by their local ethics laws or, if no such ethics
laws exist, by applicable state ethics laws.
3.10. Decision Making: The Regional Council shall seek to make all decisions by consensus. In
the event consensus cannot be achieved, the Regional Council shall make decisions by a majority
vote of its Members.
4.REGIONAL FISCAL AGENT
4.1. Purpose: According to the Colorado MOU, the Regional Council must designate a fiscal
agent for the Region prior to the Region receiving any Opioid funds from the Regional Share. All
funds from the Regional Share shall be distributed to the Regional Council’s fiscal agent for the
benefit of the entire Region.
4.2. Designation: The Regional Council shall nominate and designate a fiscal agent for the
Region by majority vote. Regional fiscal agents must be a board of county commissioners or a city
or town council or executive department, such as a department of finance.
4.3. Term: A Regional fiscal agent must be appointed by the Regional Council on an annual
basis. A Regional fiscal agent may serve as long as the Regional Council determines is appropriate,
including the length of any Settlement that contemplates the distribution of Opioid Funds within
Colorado.
4.4. Duties: The Regional fiscal agent shall receive, deposit, and make available Opioid Funds
distributed from the Abatement Council and provide expenditure reporting data to the
EXHIBIT G-1Page 142
Abatement Council on an annual basis. In addition, the Regional fiscal agent shall perform certain
recordkeeping duties outlined below.
a.Opioid Funds: The Regional fiscal agent shall receive all Opioid Funds
as distributed by the Abatement Council. Upon direction by the Regional
Council, the Regional fiscal agent shall make any such Opioid Funds
available to the Regional Council.
b.Reporting: On an annual basis, as determined by the Abatement
Council, the Regional fiscal agent shall provide to the Abatement Council
the Regional Council’s expenditure data from their allocation of the
Regional Share and certify to the Abatement Council that the Regional
Council’s expenditures were for Approved Purposes and complied with its
2-year plan.
c.Recordkeeping: The Regional fiscal agent shall maintain necessary
records with regard the Regional Council’s meetings, decisions, plans, and
expenditure data.
4.5. Authority: The fiscal agent serves at the direction of the Regional Council and in service
to the entire Region. The terms of the Colorado MOU control the authority of a Regional Council,
and by extension, the Regional fiscal agent. A Regional fiscal agent shall not stray outside the
bounds of the authority and power vested by the Colorado MOU.
5.REGIONAL TWO-YEAR PLAN
5.1. Purpose: According to the Colorado MOU, as part of a Regional Council’s request
to the Abatement Council for Opioid Funds from its Regional Share, the Regional Council
must submit a 2-year plan identifying the Approved Purposes for which the requested funds
will be used.
5.2 Development of 2-Year Plan: In developing a 2-year plan, the Regional Council shall
solicit recommendations and information from all Regional PLGs and other stakeholders within its
Region for the purposes of sharing data, outcomes, strategies, and other relevant information
related to abating the opioid crisis in Colorado. At its discretion, a Regional Council may seek
assistance from the Abatement Council for purposes of developing a 2-year plan.
5.3 Amendment: At any point, a Regional Council’s 2-year plan may be amended so long as
such amendments comply with the terms of the Colorado MOU and any Settlement.
6.DISPUTES WITHIN REGION. In the event that any Regional PLG disagrees with a decision of the
Regional Council, or there is a dispute regarding the appointment of Voting or Non-Voting Members
to the Regional Council, that Regional PLG shall inform the Acting Chair of its dispute at the earliest
EXHIBIT G-1Page 143
possible opportunity. In Response, the Regional Council shall gather any information necessary to
resolve the dispute. Within fourteen (14) days of the Regional PLG informing the Acting Chair of its
dispute, the Regional Council shall issue a decision with respect to the dispute. In reaching its decision,
the Regional Council may hold a vote of Voting Members, with the Acting Chair serving as the tie-
breaker, or the Regional Council may devise its own dispute resolution process. However, in any
disputes regarding the appointment of a Voting Member, that Voting Member will be recused from
voting on the dispute. The decision of the Regional Council is a final decision.
7.DISPUTES WITH ABATEMENT COUNCIL. If the Regional Council disputes the amount of Opioid Funds
it receives from its allocation of the Regional Share, the Regional Council shall alert the Abatement
Council within sixty (60) days of discovering the information underlying the dispute. However, the
failure to alert the Abatement Council within this time frame shall not constitute a waiver of the
Regional Council’s right to seek recoupment of any deficiency in its Regional Share.
8.RECORDKEEPING. The acting Regional fiscal agent shall be responsible for maintaining records
consistent with the Regional Agreement.
9.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. Each Regional PLGs’ representative designated below shall be the
point of contact to coordinate the obligations as provided herein. The Regional PLGs designate their
authorized representatives under this Regional Agreement as follows:
9.1. ______ designates the ____ of the ________ or their designee(s).
9.2. ______ designates the ____ of the ________ or their designee(s).
10.OBLIGATIONS OF THE REGIONAL PLGS. The Regional PLGs shall perform their respective
obligations as set forth in the Regional Agreement, the Colorado MOU and the accompanying exhibits
to the Colorado MOU and incorporated herein by reference.
11.TERM. The Regional Agreement will commence on _______, and shall expire on the date the last
action is taken by the Region, consistent with the terms of the Colorado MOU and any Settlement.
(the “Term”).
12.INFORMATIONAL OBLIGATIONS. Each Regional PLG hereto will meet its obligations as set forth in §
29-1-205, C.R.S., as amended, to include information about this Regional Agreement in a filing with
the Colorado Division of Local Government; however, failure to do so shall in no way affect the validity
of this Regional Agreement or any remedies available to the Regional PLGs hereunder.
13.CONFIDENTIALITY. The Regional PLGs, for themselves, their agents, employees and representatives,
agree that they will not divulge any confidential or proprietary information they receive from another
Regional PLG or otherwise have access to, except as may be required by law. Nothing in this Regional
EXHIBIT G-1Page 144
Agreement shall in any way limit the ability of the Regional PLGs to comply with any laws or legal
process concerning disclosures by public entities. The Regional PLGs understand that all materials
exchanged under this Regional Agreement, including confidential information or proprietary
information, may be subject to the Colorado Open Records Act., § 24-72-201, et seq., C.R.S., (the
“Act”). In the event of a request to a Regional PLG for disclosure of confidential materials, the Regional
PLG shall advise the Regional PLGs of such request in order to give the Regional PLGs the opportunity
to object to the disclosure of any of its materials which it marked as, or otherwise asserts is,
proprietary or confidential. If a Regional PLG objects to disclosure of any of its material, the Regional
PLG shall identify the legal basis under the Act for any right to withhold. In the event of any action or
the filing of a lawsuit to compel disclosure, the Regional PLG agrees to intervene in such action or
lawsuit to protect and assert its claims of privilege against disclosure of such material or waive the
same. If the matter is not resolved, the Regional PLGs may tender all material to the court for judicial
determination of the issue of disclosure.
14.GOVERNING LAW; VENUE. This Regional Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Colorado. Venue for any legal action relating solely to this Regional Agreement will be in the applicable
District Court of the State of Colorado for the county of the Region’s fiscal agent. Venue for any legal
action relating to the Colorado MOU shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction where a Settlement
or consent decree was entered, as those terms are described or defined in the Colorado MOU. If a
legal action relates to both a Regional Agreement and the Colorado MOU, venue shall also be in a
court of competent jurisdiction where a Settlement or consent decree was entered.
15.TERMINATION. The Regional PLGs enter into this Regional Agreement to serve the public interest. If
this Regional Agreement ceases to further the public interest, a Regional PLG, in its discretion, may
terminate their participation in the Regional Agreement, in whole or in part, upon written notice to
the other Regional PLGs. Each Regional PLG also has the right to terminate the Regional Agreement
with cause upon written notice effective immediately, and without cause upon thirty (30) days prior
written notice to the other Regional PLGs. A Regional PLG’s decision to terminate this Regional
Agreement, with or without cause, shall have no impact on the other Regional PLGs present or future
administration of its Opioid Funds and the other procedures outlined in this Regional Agreement.
Rather, a Regional PLG’s decision to terminate this Regional Agreement shall have the same effect as
non-participation, as outlined in Section 3.2 (e).
16.NOTICES. “Key Notices” under this Regional Agreement are notices regarding default, disputes, or
termination of the Regional Agreement. Key Notices shall be given in writing and shall be deemed
EXHIBIT G-1Page 145
received if given by confirmed electronic transmission that creates a record that may be retained,
retrieved and reviewed by a recipient thereof, and that may be directly reproduced in paper form by
such a recipient through an automated process, but specifically excluding facsimile transmissions and
texts when transmitted, if transmitted on a business day and during normal business hours of the
recipient, and otherwise on the next business day following transmission; certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, three business days after being deposited in the United States mail; or
overnight carrier service or personal delivery, when received. For Key Notices, the Regional PLGs will
follow up any electronic transmission with a hard copy of the communication by the means described
above. All other communications or notices between the Regional PLGs that are not Key Notices may
be done via electronic transmission. The Regional PLGs agree that any notice or communication
transmitted by electronic transmission shall be treated in all manner and respects as an original
written document; any such notice or communication shall be considered to have the same binding
and legal effect as an original document. All Key Notices shall include a reference to the Regional
Agreement, and Key Notices shall be given to the Regional PLGs at the following addresses:
_____________________________
_____________________________
17.GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
17.1. Independent Entities. The Regional PLGs enter into this Regional Agreement as separate,
independent governmental entities and shall maintain such status throughout.
17.2. Assignment. This Regional Agreement shall not be assigned by any Regional PLG without
the prior written consent of all Regional PLGs. Any assignment or subcontracting without
such consent will be ineffective and void and will be cause for termination of this Regional
Agreement.
17.3. Integration and Amendment. This Regional Agreement represents the entire agreement
between the Regional PLGs and terminates any oral or collateral agreement or
understandings. This Regional Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by the
Regional PLGs. If any provision of this Regional Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable,
no other provision shall be affected by such holding, and the remaining provision of this
Regional Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
EXHIBIT G-1Page 146
17.4. No Construction Against Drafting Party. The Regional PLGs and their respective counsel
have had the opportunity to review the Regional Agreement, and the Regional Agreement
will not be construed against any Regional PLG merely because any provisions of the Regional
Agreement were prepared by a particular Regional PLG.
17.5. Captions and References. The captions and headings in this Regional Agreement are for
convenience of reference only and shall not be used to interpret, define, or limit its
provisions. All references in this Regional Agreement to sections (whether spelled out or
using the § symbol), subsections, exhibits or other attachments, are references to sections,
subsections, exhibits or other attachments contained herein or incorporated as a part hereof,
unless otherwise noted.
17.6. Statutes, Regulations, and Other Authority. Any reference in this Regional Agreement to
a statute, regulation, policy or other authority shall be interpreted to refer to such authority
then current, as may have been changed or amended since the execution of this Regional
Agreement.
17.7. Conflict of Interest. No Regional PLG shall knowingly perform any act that would conflict
in any manner with said Regional PLG’s obligations hereunder. Each Regional PLG certifies
that it is not engaged in any current project or business transaction, directly or indirectly, nor
has it any interest, direct or indirect, with any person or business that might result in a
conflict of interest in the performance of its obligations hereunder. No elected or employed
member of any Regional PLG shall be paid or receive, directly or indirectly, any share or part
of this Regional Agreement or any benefit that may arise therefrom.
17.8. Inurement. The rights and obligations of the Regional PLGs to the Regional Agreement
inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the Regional PLGs and their respective
successors and assigns, provided assignments are consented to in accordance with the terms
of the Regional Agreement.
17.9. Survival. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Regional PLGs understand and
agree that all terms and conditions of this Regional Agreement and any exhibits that require
continued performance or compliance beyond the termination or expiration of this Regional
Agreement shall survive such termination or expiration and shall be enforceable against a
Regional PLG if such Regional PLG fails to perform or comply with such term or condition.
17.10. Waiver of Rights and Remedies. This Regional Agreement or any of its provisions may not
be waived except in writing by a Regional PLG’s authorized representative. The failure of a
EXHIBIT G-1Page 147
Regional PLG to enforce any right arising under this Regional Agreement on one or more
occasions will not operate as a waiver of that or any other right on that or any other occasion.
17.11. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Enforcement of the terms of the Regional Agreement and
all rights of action relating to enforcement are strictly reserved to the Regional PLGs. Nothing
contained in the Regional Agreement gives or allows any claim or right of action to any third
person or entity. Any person or entity other than the Regional PLGs receiving services or
benefits pursuant to the Regional Agreement is an incidental beneficiary only.
17.12. Records Retention. The Regional PLGs shall maintain all records, including working
papers, notes, and financial records in accordance with their applicable record retention
schedules and policies. Copies of such records shall be furnished to the Parties request.
17.13. Execution by Counterparts; Electronic Signatures and Records. This Regional Agreement
may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original,
but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. The Regional PLGs approve
the use of electronic signatures for execution of this Regional Agreement. All use of
electronic signatures shall be governed by the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, C.R.S. §§
24-71.3-101, et seq. The Regional PLGs agree not to deny the legal effect or enforceability of
the Regional Agreement solely because it is in electronic form or because an electronic
record was used in its formation. The Regional PLGs agree not to object to the admissibility
of the Regional Agreement in the form of an electronic record, or a paper copy of an
electronic document, or a paper copy of a document bearing an electronic signature, on the
ground that it is an electronic record or electronic signature or that it is not in its original
form or is not an original.
17.14. Authority to Execute. Each Regional PLG represents that all procedures necessary to
authorize such Regional PLG’s execution of this Regional Agreement have been performed
and that the person signing for such Regional PLG has been authorized to execute the
Regional Agreement.
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4826-9997-5642, v. 7
EXHIBIT G-1Page 148
Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding
Summary
Below is a brief overview of the key provisions outlined in the Colorado Opioids
Settlement Memorandum of Understanding (“Colorado MOU”). The Colorado MOU was signed
by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on August 26, 2021. In order to receive the full
settlement payments for all of Colorado, strong participation by local governments signing on to
the Colorado MOU is necessary.
Local governments and the State prepared the Colorado MOU, which prioritizes
regionalism, collaboration, and abatement in the sharing and distribution of opioid settlement
funds. The points below summarize the framework laid out in the Colorado MOU for
distributing and sharing opioids settlement proceeds throughout Colorado. Please see the full
Colorado MOU and exhibits for additional details.
While Colorado’s local governments are currently being asked to participate in recent
settlements with the “Big 3” Distributors (AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson)
and Johnson & Johnson, the Colorado MOU is intended to apply to all current and future opioid
settlements.
A.Allocation of Settlement Funds
The Colorado MOU provides the framework for fairly dividing and sharing settlement
proceeds among the state and local governments in Colorado. Under the Colorado MOU,
settlement proceeds will be distributed as follows:
1.10% directly to the State (“State Share”)
2.20% directly to Participating Local Governments (“LG Share”)
3.60% directly to Regions (“Regional Share”)
4.10% to specific abatement infrastructure projects (“Statewide Infrastructure
Share”)
Under the Colorado MOU, all settlement funds must be used only for “Approved
Purposes,” a long and broad list that focuses on abatement strategies. These strategies emphasize
prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. Some examples of these strategies include training
health care providers on opioid use disorder (“OUD”) treatment and responsible prescribing,
expanding telehealth and mobile services for treatment, and increasing naloxone and rescue
breathing supplies. The list of Approved Purposes is broad enough to be flexible for local
communities, while ensuring that settlement funds are used to combat the opioid epidemic. The
list of Approved Purposes is attached as Exhibit A to the MOU, unless the term is otherwise
defined in a settlement.
Attachment 3
Page 149
B. General Abatement Fund Council
A General Abatement Fund Council (the “Abatement Council”), consisting of
representatives appointed by the State and Participating Local Governments, will ensure that the
distribution of opioid funds complies with the terms of any settlement and the terms of the
Colorado MOU. The Abatement Council will consist of 13 members, seven appointed by the
State and six appointed by the Participating Local Governments.
C. Local Government Share (20%)
Twenty percent of settlement funds will be paid directly to Participating Local
Governments. Exhibit D to the Colorado MOU lists the percentage to each County Area (that is,
the county government plus the municipalities within that county), and Exhibit E further breaks
down those allocations to an intracounty level using a default allocation.
The allocations to each County Area in Exhibit D are based on three factors that address
critical causes and effects of the opioid crisis: (1) the number of persons suffering opioid use
disorder in the county; (2) the number of opioid overdose deaths that occurred in the county; and
(3) the amount of opioids distributed within the county.
The intracounty allocations in Exhibit E are a default allocation that will apply unless the
local governments in a County Area enter into a written agreement providing for a different
allocation. These allocations are based on a model, developed by health economist experts,
which uses data from the State and Local Government Census on past spending relevant to
opioid abatement.
Participating Local Governments will provide data on expenditures from the LG Share to
the Abatement Council on an annual basis. If a local government wishes, it may forego its LG
Share and direct it to the Regional Share. A local government that chooses not to participate or
sign onto the Colorado MOU will not receive funds from the LG Share and the portion of the LG
Share that it would have received will instead be re-allocated to the Regional Share for the region
where that local government is located.
D. Regional Share (60%)
Sixty percent of settlement funds will be allocated to single- or multi-county regions
made up of local governments. These regions were drawn by local governments to make use of
existing local infrastructure and relationships. The regional map is shown below, as well as in
Exhibit C to the Colorado MOU:
Page 150
Allocations to regions will be calculated according to the percentages in Exhibit F. Each
region will create its own “Regional Council” to determine what Approved Purposes to fund
with that region’s allocation from the Regional Share. Regional governance models are attached
to the Colorado MOU as Exhibit G. Each region may draft its own intra-regional agreements,
bylaws, or other governing documents to determine how the Regional Council will operate,
subject to the terms of the Colorado MOU. Each Regional Council will provide expenditure data
to the Abatement Council on an annual basis.
A local government that chooses not to participate or sign onto the Colorado MOU shall
not receive any opioid funds from the Regional Share and shall not participate in the Regional
Councils.
E. State Share (10%)
Ten percent of settlement funds will be allocated directly to the State for statewide
priorities in combating the opioid epidemic. The State maintains full discretion over distribution
of the State Share anywhere within the State of Colorado. On an annual basis, the State shall
provide all data on expenditures from the State Share, including administrative costs, to the
Abatement Council.
F. Statewide Infrastructure Share (10%)
Ten percent of the settlement funds will be allocated to a Statewide Infrastructure Share
to promote capital improvements and provide operational assistance for the development or
improvement of infrastructure necessary to abate the opioid crisis anywhere in Colorado.
Page 151
The Abatement Council shall establish and publish policies and procedures for the
distribution and oversight of the Statewide Infrastructure Share, including processes for local
governments or regions to apply for opioid funds from the Statewide Infrastructure Share.
G. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses Paid Through a Back-Stop Fund
To a large extent, the national opioid settlements occurred because of the pressure that
litigating entities and their counsel exerted on defendants through their lawsuits. The attorneys’
fee provision equitably allocates the cost of attorneys’ fees, while also allowing non-litigating
entities to share in the 25% premium for releases by the litigating entities in the “Big 3”
Distributor and Johnson & Johnson settlements. The work that was done by the litigating entities
and their law firms in the litigation has substantially contributed to achieving the settlements that
are currently being offered and those that are anticipated in the future.
The Attorney General and local governments have agreed to a “Back-Stop Fund” for
attorneys’ fees and costs. Before a law firm can apply to the Back-Stop Fund, it must first apply
to any national common benefit fee fund. The Back-Stop Fund will only be used to pay the
difference between what law firms are owed and the amount they have received from a national
common benefit fee fund.
Attorneys’ fees are limited to 8.7% of the total LG Share and 4.35% of the total Regional
Share. No funds will be taken from the Statewide Infrastructure Share or State Share.
A committee will be formed to oversee payments from the Back-Stop Fund. The
committee will include litigating and non-litigating entities. Importantly, any excess money in
the Back-Stop fund, after attorneys’ fees and costs are paid, will go back to the local
governments.
H. Participation in the Colorado MOU and Expected Timeline
The MOU was designed to ensure that as many local governments as possible would
agree to its terms. Strong participation from local governments is needed to receive the full
settlement payments for all of Colorado. On August 26, 2021, Colorado Attorney General Phil
Weiser signed the MOU. It is projected that settlement funds from the “Big 3”
Distributor/Johnson & Johnson settlements could be made available as soon as July 2022 and
will be distributed within Colorado according to the MOU.
Along with the MOU, each local government will need to sign a Subdivision Settlement
Participation Form for each of the settlements (the “Big 3” Distributor settlement and the
Johnson & Johnson settlement) releasing their legal claims and stating they are participating in
the settlements. In addition, a Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement should be signed to
ensure legal claims are released only when 95% participation by certain local governments has
been reached. That 95% participation threshold is important because it triggers certain amounts
of incentive payments under the settlements and signals to the settling pharmaceutical companies
that the settlements have wide acceptance.
A copy of the MOU with signature pages for each local government, the Subdivision
Settlement Participation Forms, and the Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement will be
Page 152
provided by the Attorney General’s Office. The documents should be executed by the individual
or body with authority to do so on behalf of their respective county or municipality and
submitted by mail or email to either CCI or CML at the following addresses:
For Counties:
Colorado Counties, Inc.
800 Grant, Ste 500
Denver, CO 80203
Email:
Kyley Burress at KBurress@ccionline.org
Katie First at KFirst@ccionline.org
For Municipalities:
Colorado Municipal League
1144 N. Sherman St.
Denver, CO 80203
Email: opioidsettlement@cml.org
If you have any questions, please reach out to Heidi Williams of the Colorado AG’s
office at Heidi.Williams@coag.gov.
4836-1115-5960, v. 7
Page 153
Colorado Opioids Settlement MOU: Frequently Asked Questions
1.What does this “settle” and why does Colorado need an MOU?
Nationwide settlements have been reached with the “Big 3” opioid distributors (McKesson,
Cardinal Health, and AmerisourceBergen) and opioid manufacturer Johnson & Johnson to
resolve claims by state and local governments that these companies contributed to the opioid
epidemic. The claims being settled include those raised by local governments in the national
multi-district litigation (“MDL”), In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL 2804
(N.D. Ohio). More information about these settlements can be found at
https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/.
The Colorado MOU establishes the framework for distributing and sharing these settlement
proceeds throughout Colorado. Local governments and the State prepared the Colorado MOU,
which prioritizes regionalism, collaboration, and abatement. It is expected that the Colorado
MOU will also be used for settlements with other opioid defendants in the future, including any
settlement from Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy proceeding. Colorado Attorney General Phil
Weiser signed the MOU on August 26, 2021. The Colorado MOU is included in this packet from
the Attorney General’s Office and can also be found at www.coag.gov/opioids.
2.Who put together the Colorado MOU?
Local government officials from across Colorado were involved in the negotiation of the
Colorado MOU with the Attorney General’s Office. County commissioners, mayors, county and
city attorneys, and other stakeholders came together with the assistance of Colorado Counties,
Inc. (“CCI”) and the Colorado Municipal League (“CML”) to establish the framework and
negotiate the details of the Colorado MOU.
3.How much money will Colorado receive and over what period of time?
Funds from the Big 3 and Johnson & Johnson settlements will be distributed over a period of
years. The Big 3 distributors will pay a maximum of $21 billion over 18 years, while Johnson &
Johnson will pay a maximum of $5 billion over no more than nine years. In total, up to
approximately $22.8 billion in settlement proceeds will be payable to state and local subdivisions
nationwide. Each state receives a percentage of that recovery, and Colorado’s maximum share
from these settlements will likely be more than $300 million.
However, as discussed more below, Colorado will receive its maximum share of settlement
payments only if enough local governments sign on to the deal. Also, the settling defendants
have the option to “walk away” from the deals if there is not enough participation, so it is
important that a “critical mass” of local governments signs on soon. Otherwise, the entire deal
could fall through.
Attachment 4
Page 154
4. How can we maximize Colorado’s recovery?
The MOU was designed to ensure that as many local governments as possible would agree to its
terms. The Big 3 Distributor and Johnson & Johnson settlements include incentive payments
based on how many governments participate. Strong participation from local governments is
needed to receive the full settlement payments for all of Colorado. Local governments should
sign the Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement to ensure their legal claims are released only
when 95% participation by local governments has been reached, which secures significant
incentive payments under these settlement agreements. For more information on the incentive
payments, please see the graphics below:
Page 155
5. Is participation limited to litigating entities?
No, participation is not limited to governments that filed suit in the opioid litigation. Money from
these settlements will be used for opioid crisis abatement in communities across Colorado,
regardless of whether they have chosen to sue. All Colorado local governments are eligible to
participate in the settlements and join the MOU, and the MOU does not allocate more funds to
cities and counties that chose to file suit—all cities and counties in Colorado are allocated funds
based on the same objective factors.
6. How will settlement proceeds be divided within the state under the Colorado
MOU?
Under the Colorado MOU, settlement proceeds will be distributed as follows:
• 10% directly to the State (“State Share”)
• 20% directly to Participating Local Governments (“LG Share”)
• 60% directly to Regions (“Regional Share”)
• 10% to specific abatement infrastructure projects (“Statewide Infrastructure
Share”)
7. How will the money be spent?
Under the Colorado MOU, all settlement funds must be used only for “Approved Purposes,” a
long and broad list that focuses on abatement strategies. These strategies emphasize prevention,
treatment, and harm reduction. Some examples of these strategies include training health care
providers on opioid use disorder (“OUD”) treatment and responsible prescribing, expanding
telehealth and mobile services for treatment, and increasing naloxone and rescue breathing
Page 156
supplies. The list of Approved Purposes is broad enough to be flexible for local communities,
while ensuring that settlement funds are used to combat the opioid epidemic. The list of
Approved Purposes is attached as Exhibit A to the MOU, unless the term is otherwise defined in
a settlement.
To ensure that settlement funds are in fact used only for Approved Purposes, a General
Abatement Fund Council (the “Abatement Council”) will be formed. This committee will consist
of thirteen representatives appointed by the State and Participating Local Governments to ensure
opioid funds are spent in compliance with the terms of the settlements and the Colorado MOU.
8. How will direct payments to local governments be allocated?
Under the Colorado MOU, 20% of the settlement funds will be paid directly to local
governments. A list of the percentage of settlement funds that will be allocated to each County
Area (that is, the county government plus the municipalities within that county) is Exhibit D to
the Colorado MOU. Those allocations are further broken down to an intracounty level in Exhibit
E, which is a default allocation.
The allocations to each County Area are based on three factors that address the relative severity
of the opioid crisis: (a) the number of persons suffering from Opioid Use Disorder in the county;
(b) the number of opioid overdose deaths in the county; and (c) the amount of opioids distributed
within the county (measured in Morphine Milligram Equivalent units).
The intracounty allocations in Exhibit E are based on a default allocation model that will apply
unless the local governments in a County Area enter into an agreement that provides for a
different allocation model. These allocations are based on a model developed by health
economist experts, which use data from the State and Local Governments Census on past
spending relevant to opioid abatement.
To ensure transparency and that settlement funds are used for Approved Purposes, local
governments that receive settlement funds directly will be required to provide expenditure data
to the Abatement Council on an annual basis. Local governments that wish to join the MOU but
do not wish to receive any direct payments have the option to redirect their payments to the
Regional allocation described below.
A local government that chooses not to participate or sign onto the Colorado MOU will not
receive funds from the LG Share and the portion of the LG share that it would have received will
instead be re-allocated to the Regional Share described below.
9. How will payments to Regions be allocated?
Under the Colorado MOU, 60% of the settlement funds will be allocated to single- or multi-
county regions made up of local governments. Local governments in Colorado worked
collaboratively to develop the Regional Map, which emphasizes existing local infrastructure and
relationships. The regional map is below, as well as included in the Colorado MOU as Exhibit C:
Page 157
For more information on the percentages of settlement funds that will be allocated to each
Region, please see Exhibit F of the Colorado MOU.
10. How will the Regions be governed?
Each Region will create its own “Regional Council” consisting of members from the constituent
local governments to determine what Approved Purposes to fund with the Region’s allocation.
The Regional Council will have the power to make spending decisions in the Region. The
Regions will designate a fiscal agent prior to receiving any settlement funds. Regional
governance models are attached to the Colorado MOU as Exhibit G. Each Region may draft its
own intra-regional agreements, bylaws, or other governing documents to determine how the
Regional Council will operate. Each Regional Council will provide expenditure data to the
Abatement Council on an annual basis.
11. How will the Statewide Infrastructure Share work?
Many stakeholders have expressed a need for capital improvements across Colorado, and
particularly in underserved areas, to abate the opioid crisis. The Colorado MOU directly
addresses this by allocating 10% of settlement funds going to these projects. This money will be
distributed by a statewide committee based on need. The Abatement Council will establish and
publish policies and procedures for the distribution and oversight of the Statewide Infrastructure
Share, including processes for local governments or regions to apply for opioid funds from the
Statewide Infrastructure Share.
Page 158
12. How will attorneys’ fees and expenses be paid?
The Attorney General and local governments have agreed to a “Back-Stop Fund” for attorneys’
fees and costs. The attorneys’ fee provision in the Colorado MOU equitably allocates the cost of
attorneys’ fees across all local governments, while also allowing non-litigating entities to share
in the 25% premium for releases signed by the litigating entities in the “Big 3” Distributor and
Johnson & Johnson settlements.
Before a law firm can apply to the Back-Stop Fund, it must first apply to any national common
benefit fee fund. The Back-Stop Fund will only be used to pay the difference between what law
firms are owed and the amount they have received from a national common benefit fee fund.
Attorneys’ fees are limited to 8.7% of the total LG Share and 4.35% of the total Regional Share.
No funds will be taken from the Statewide Infrastructure Share or State Share.
A committee will be formed to oversee payments from the Back-Stop Fund. The committee will
include litigating and non-litigating entities. Importantly, any excess money in the Back-Stop
fund, after attorneys’ fees and costs are paid, will go back to the local governments.
13. Why is this a great result for local governments?
The Colorado MOU will ensure effective and efficient use of funds without dilution or diversion
of opioid settlement money to unrelated purposes or unnecessary overhead expenses. In the
Colorado MOU the local governments control 80% of the settlement funds.
• Bottom-Up Approach – The need is at the local level, so the resources should be, too.
• Local Voices – The communities bearing the brunt of this burden must have a meaningful
seat at the table to make decisions about where resources go.
• Flexibility – The Colorado MOU provides an opportunity for local governments to decide
how to entrust their own regional funds without unnecessary red tape.
14. How do I sign the MOU?
Local governments should sign four documents.
a. First is the MOU.
b. Next, each local government will need to sign a Subdivision Settlement Participation
Form for each of the two settlements (the “Big 3” Distributor settlement and the Johnson &
Johnson settlement) releasing their legal claims and stating they are participating in the
settlements.
c. In addition, a Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement should be signed to ensure
legal claims are released only when 95% participation by certain local governments has been
reached, which secures a significant portion of the incentive payments described in FAQ 4,
above. Under the terms of the Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement, CCI (for counties) or
Page 159
CML (for municipalities) will hold the MOUs and the Subdivision Settlement Participation
Forms for each of the settlements in escrow until 95% participation by local governments has
been reached as to specified incentive payments under the respective settlement agreements.
Copies of the Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms, the MOU with signature pages for
each local government, and the Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement will be provided by the
Attorney General’s Office. The documents should be executed by the individual or body with
authority to do so on behalf of their respective county or municipality and submitted by mail or
email to either CCI or CML at the following addresses:
For Counties:
Colorado Counties, Inc.
800 Grant, Ste 500
Denver, CO 80203
Email:
Kyley Burress KBurress@ccionline.org
Katie First KFirst@ccionline.org
For Municipalities:
Colorado Municipal League
1144 N. Sherman St.
Denver, CO 80203
Email: opioidsettlement@cml.org
If you have any questions, please reach out to Heidi Williams of the Colorado AG’s office at
Heidi.Williams@coag.gov.
4831-7831-1416, v. 5
Page 160
86
revised July 30, 2021
EXHIBIT K
Settlement Participation Form
Governmental Entity: State:
Authorized Official:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
Email:
The governmental entity identified above (“Governmental Entity”), in order to obtain and in
consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement dated July 21, 2021 (“Janssen Settlement”), and acting through the undersigned
authorized official, hereby elects to participate in the Janssen Settlement, release all Released
Claims against all Released Entities, and agrees as follows.
1.The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Janssen Settlement,
understands that all terms in this Election and Release have the meanings defined therein,
and agrees that by this Election, the Governmental Entity elects to participate in the
Janssen Settlement and become a Participating Subdivision as provided therein.
2.The Governmental Entity shall, within 14 days of the Reference Date and prior to the
filing of the Consent Judgment, dismiss with prejudice any Released Claims that it has
filed.
3.The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Janssen Settlement pertaining to
Subdivisions as defined therein.
4.By agreeing to the terms of the Janssen Settlement and becoming a Releasor, the
Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including, if applicable,
monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date.
5.The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Janssen
Settlement solely for the purposes provided therein.
6.The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental
Entity’s state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that court’s role
as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in, the Janssen
Settlement.
7.The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Janssen Settlement as provided
therein.
Attachment 5
Page 161
87
revised July 30, 2021
8. The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for
all purposes in the Janssen Settlement, including but not limited to all provisions of
Section IV (Release), and along with all departments, agencies, divisions, boards,
commissions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in
their official capacity elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency,
person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity
identified in the definition of Releasor, provides for a release to the fullest extent of its
authority. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely, unconditionally,
and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be
brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released
Claims against any Released Entity in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for
in the Janssen Settlement are intended by the Parties to be broad and shall be interpreted
so as to give the Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating
in any way to Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the
Governmental Entity to release claims. The Janssen Settlement shall be a complete bar to
any Released Claim.
9. In connection with the releases provided for in the Janssen Settlement, each
Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all
provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the
United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar,
comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:
General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that
the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or
her favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her,
would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or
released party.
A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it
knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but each
Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles,
releases and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may
exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether
through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and
which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities’ decision to
participate in the Janssen Settlement.
10. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Janssen Settlement, to
which Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent this Election and Release is
interpreted differently from the Janssen Settlement in any respect, the Janssen Settlement
controls.
Page 162
88
revised July 30, 2021
I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Election and Release on behalf of
the Governmental Entity.
Signature:
Name:
Title:
Date:
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Page 163
Governmental Entity:
Authorized Official:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
Email:
EXHIBITK
DISTRIBUTORS' 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
Subdivision Settlement Participation Form
State:
The governmental entity identified above ("Governmental Entity"), in order to obtain and
in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement dated July 21, 2021 ("Distributor Settlement"), and acting through the undersigned
authorized official, hereby elects to participate in the Distributor Settlement, release all Released
Claims against all Released Entities, and agrees as follows.
1.The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Distributor Settlement,
understands that all terms in this Participation Form have the meanings defined therein,
and agrees that by signing this Participation Form, the Governmental Entity elects to
participate in the Distributor Settlement and become a Participating Subdivision as
provided therein.
2.The Governmental Entity shall, within 14 days of the Reference Date and prior to the
filing of the Consent Judgment, secure the dismissal with prejudice of any Released
Claims that it has filed.
3.The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Distributor Settlement pertaining to
Subdivisions as defined therein.
4.By agreeing to the terms of the Distributor Settlement and becoming a Releasor, the
Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including, if applicable,
monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date.
5.The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Distributor
Settlement solely for the purposes provided therein.
6.The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental
Entity's state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that court's role
as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in, the Distributor
Settlement. The Governmental Entity likewise agrees to arbitrate before the National
Arbitration Panel as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent otherwise
provided in, the Distributor Settlement.
K-1
Attachment 6
Page 164
DISTRIBUTORS' 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
7.The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Distributor Settlement as provided
therein.
8.The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for
all purposes in the Distributor Settlement, including, but not limited to, all provisions of
Part XI, and along with all departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions,
districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in their official
capacity elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person, or
other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity identified in
the definition of Releasor, provides for a release to the fullest extent of its authority. As a
Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably
covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be brought, filed, or
claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released Claims against any
Released Entity in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for in the Distributor
Settlement are intended by the Parties to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give
the Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating in any way to
Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the Governmental Entity to
release claims. The Distributor Settlement shall be a complete bar to any Released
Claim.
9.The Governmental Entity hereby takes on all rights and obligations of a Participating
Subdivision as set forth in the Distributor Settlement.
10.In connection with the releases provided for in the Distributor Settlement, each
Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all
provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the
United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar,
comparable, or equivalent to§ 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:
General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that
the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or
her favor at the time of executing the release, and that if known by him or
her would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or
released party.
A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it
knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but each
Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles,
releases and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may
exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether
through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and
which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities' decision to
participate in the Distributor Settlement.
K-2
Page 165
DISTRIBUTORS' 9.18.21
EXHIBIT UPDATES
11.Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Distributor Settlement,
to which Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent this Participation Form is
interpreted differently from the Distributor Settlement in any respect, the Distributor
Settlement controls.
I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Participation Form on behalf of the
Governmental Entity.
Signature:
Name:
Title:
Date:
K-3
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Page 166
Colorado Subdivision Escrow Agreement
Governmental Entity: State: CO
Authorized Official:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
Email:
The governmental entity identified above ("Governmental Entity") hereby provides Colorado
Counties, Inc. (for counties) or the Colorado Municipal League (for municipalities) ("Escrow
Agent") the enclosed copies of the Governmental Entity's endorsed Subdivision Settlement
Participation Forms and the Colorado Opioids Settlement Memorandum of Understanding
("Colorado MOU"), to be held in escrow. The Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms apply
respectively to (1) the National Settlement Agreement with McKesson Corporation, Cardinal
Health, Inc., and AmerisourceBergen Corporation, dated July 21, 2021 ("Distributor
Settlement"); and (2) the National Settlement Agreement with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
its parent company Johnson & Johnson, dated July 21, 2021 ("J&J Settlement"). Pursuant to this
Agreement, the Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms and the Colorado MOU will be
released only ifthere is 95% participation by local governments in Colorado as further explained
below.
Purpose of this Agreement
By endorsing a Subdivision Settlement Participation Form in the Distributor Settlement and the
J&J Settlement, a governmental entity agrees to participate in those settlements and release any
legal claims it has or may have against those settling pharmaceutical companies. This Colorado
Subdivision Escrow Agreement is meant to ensure that the legal claims of governmental entities
in Colorado will be released only when 95% participation by certain governmental entities has
been reached. That 95% participation threshold is important because it signals to the settling
pharmaceutical companies that the settlement has wide acceptance which will then secure
significant incentive payments under these settlement agreements.
Escrow
The Escrow Agent shall promptly report the receipt of any Governmental Entity's endorsed
Subdivision Settlement Participation Forms and Colorado MOUs to the Colorado Attorney
General's Office and to the law firm of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. These documents shall be
released by the Escrow Agent to the Colorado Attorney General's Office if and when the Escrow
Agent is notified by the Attorney General's Office and Keller Rohrback that that the threshold
95% participation levels have been reached for both the Distributor Settlement and the J&J
Settlement, as further described below. Ifby December 29, 2021, the Escrow Agent has not
received notification that the threshold 95% levels have been reached for both the Distributor
Settlement and the J&J Settlements, then the documents being escrowed shall be returned to the
Governmental Entities and all copies shall be destroyed.
Attachment 7
Page 167
Distributor Settlement
The Attorney General's Office and Keller Rohrback shall jointly submit a written notification to
the Escrow Agent when it has been determined that the percentages of populations eligible for
Incentives Band C, as described in Sections IV.F.2 and IV.F.3 of the Distributor Settlement, are
each 95% or more. For purposes of this Escrow Agreement, the percentages of populations
eligible for Incentives B and C under the Distributor Settlement will include governmental
entities that sign a Subdivision Settlement Participation Form subject to an escrow agreement
and governmental entities that sign a Subdivision Settlement Participation Form that is not
subject to an escrow agreement.
J&J Settlement
The Attorney General's Office and Keller Rohrback shall jointly submit a written notification to
the Escrow Agent when it has been determined that the Participation or Case-Specific Resolution
Levels for Incentives Band C, as described in Sections V.E.5 and V.E.6 of the J&J Settlement,
are each 95% or more. For purposes of this Escrow Agreement, the percentages or populations
eligible for Incentives Band C under the J&J Settlement will include governmental entities that
sign a Subdivision Settlement Participation Form subject to an escrow agreement and
governmental entities that sign a Subdivision Settlement Participation Form that is not subject to
an escrow agreement.
Colorado Subdivision Name
Authorized Signature Date
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Page 168
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on ACTION ITEM 2.
Ordinance 17-21 Amending Estes Park Municipal Code Section 2.20.010
Compensation of Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Trustees.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information
presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, public comment,
and written comments received on the item.
Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public
hearing which may be responded to at that time.
Mayor declares the Public Hearing open.
2. STAFF REPORT.
Review the staff report.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT.
Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the
item. All individuals must state their name and address for the record.
Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per
person.
4. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the item which are not in the Board packet.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the item.
Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications
presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Declare the public hearing closed.
Request Board consider a motion.
7. SUGGESTED MOTION.
Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report.
Page 169
8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
Discussion by the Board on the motion.
9. VOTE ON THE MOTION.
Vote on the motion or consideration of another action.
*NOTE: Ordinances are read into record at the discretion of the Mayor as it is not required
to do so by State Statute.
Page 170
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: November 23, 2021
RE: Ordinance 17-21 Amending Estes Park Municipal Code Section 2.20.010
Compensation of Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Trustees.
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Review the Town Board compensation and determine if Board compensation should be
adjusted prior to the upcoming Municipal election on April 5, 2022.
Present Situation:
An extensive review of Board compensation has been completed prior to each Municipal
Election year as requested by the Town Board since 2012. The last review was completed in
December 2019 and the Board approved an increase in Board salaries for members newly
elected in 2020: Mayor - $12,000, Mayor Pro Tem - 10,000, and $9,000 for Trustees. The Board
members elected in April 2020 received the new salaries.
Staff provided data gathered from other municipalities on Board compensation at the September
14, 2021 and October 12, 2021 study sessions. During the discussions staff indicated the
current Board salaries adopted in 2019 are at the midpoint of other communities and provide
funds to fully pay for benefits at the family rate, a past benchmark for previous Board’s in the
consideration to increase salaries.
The Board suggested an increase in compensation may expand the future candidate pool and
ensure any future increases in benefits would be covered. Staff reviewed increases to the
Management pay family over the past 5 years, the annual merit provided to staff, and increases
to insurance premiums to further evaluate proposed increases to the Board’s compensation.
The following information was provided to the Board during the October 12, 2021 study session.
MGMT Market
Adjustment
Annual
Merit
Insurance
Premium Increase
Mayor Mayor
Pro Tem
Trustee
2012-2017 $7,500 $6,500 $5,500
2018 0% 2% 5% $11,000 $9,000 $8,000
2019 1.70% 2% 0%
2020 2% 2% 2% $12,000 $10,000 $9,000
2021 2% 0% 0%
2022 1% 2% 2% $15,000 $13,000 $11,000
Page 171
Proposal:
The proposed compensation would front load projected increases over the next four years for
newly elected Board members as it relates to market increases, merit and insurance premium
increases. The Board requested staff review the possibility of providing predetermined
incremental increases during the course of a Board member’s term rather than provide the full
increase upfront, and to determine if the current compensation would be sufficient to cover the
cost of health care premiums. After review of the state statutes, Attorney Kramer would not
recommend incremental increases during a term.
In 2019, staff determined Board members attend approximately 160 hours of meetings annually.
As noted previously, some Board members may have additional liaison or meetings they attend
which would increase the average hours. These hours do not reflect hours a Board member
may spend preparing for each meeting as this varies by member or hours spent meeting with
constituents. Staff utilized the Larimer County living wage for two adults and the family rate for
benefit premiums to further evaluate the proposed increases. In 2019 the living wage was
$20.43 and in 2021 the living wage increased to $23.24. Utilizing the current growth rate for
both the living wage and Town benefits staff estimates the proposed increases to would keep
the Board compensation in line with the cost of living.
Advantages:
• Board compensation would remain in line with the market increases and merit for the
management pay family as projected for the next four years.
• Be in line with the living wage for Larimer County for two adults.
Disadvantages:
• Newly elected Board members would receive compensation which reflects projected
increases for the next four years upfront rather than over the course of their term.
Action Recommended:
Staff has prepared an Ordinance outlining a $3,000 increase for Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem and
$2,000 for Trustee.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Any increase in compensation may require adjustment to the Legislative budget.
Level of Public Interest:
Low.
Sample Motion
I move to approve/deny Ordinance 17 -21.
Attachment:
1. Ordinance 17 -21
Page 172
ORDINANCE NO. 17-21
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.20.010 REGARDING
COMPENSATION OF MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM, AND TRUSTEES
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of section 31-4-301(4), C.R.S., the Mayor
and Trustees shall receive such compensation as fixed by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code provides for compensation
of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and each Trustee; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that it is necessary to amend
section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code to increase the compensation for the Mayor, the
Mayor Pro Tem, and each Trustee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: In this ordinance, ellipses indicate material not reproduced as the
Board intends to leave that material in effect as it now reads.
Section 2: Section 2.20.010 of the Municipal Code shall be amended, by adding
italicized material and deleting stricken material, to read as follows:
2.20.010 - Compensation of Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Trustees.
. . .
(1)The Mayor shall receive as compensation for his or her services the sum of
twelve fifteen thousand dollars ($1215,000.00) per year during each year of
his or her term, payable in equal monthly payments.
(2)The Mayor Pro Tem shall receive as compensation for his or her services
the sum of ten thirteen thousand dollars ($1013,000.00) per year during
each year of his or her term, payable in equal monthly payments.
(3)Each Town Trustee shall receive as compensation for his or her services
the sum of nine eleven thousand dollars ($911,000.00) per year during
each year of his or her term, payable in equal monthly payments.
Such sums shall apply to new terms of office beginning upon or after the effective
date of the most recently adopted version of this section. For terms beginning
Attachment 1
Page 173
prior, compensation shall be as established by the ordinance in effect at the
commencement of the term.
Section 3: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this ____ day of _______________, 2021.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2021 and published in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day
of , 2021, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Page 174